Arvind and Pitt Stormwater Cost Report

Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices
Arvind Narayanan
and
Robert Pitt
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
June 18, 2006
Table of Contents
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................................viii
Chapter I ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Cost Analysis Elements................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Total Costs............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Capital Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.3 Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs ............................................................................................. 3
1.3.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.............................................................................................. 3
1.3.5 Life Cycle Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research Outline........................................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter II............................................................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Cost Estimation Methodologies..................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Bottom-Up Method................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Top-Down Method ................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2.3 Analogy Method ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Expert Judgment Method........................................................................................................................ 6
2.2.4 Algorithmic or Parametric Method ......................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Cost Estimates for Stormwater/Wastewater Conveyance Systems .................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Pipeline costs ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2 Trench Excavation Costs ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Bedding Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.4 Backfill Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.5 Manhole Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.6 Inlet Costs............................................................................................................................................ 19
2.4 Combined Sewage Overflow Controls that can be Applied to Stormwater.................................................... 20
2.4.1 Surface Storage.................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.2 Earthen and Concrete Ponds ................................................................................................................ 21
2.4.3 Deep Tunnels ....................................................................................................................................... 30
2.4.4 Swirl Concentrators, Screens, Sedimentation Basins and Disinfection................................................... 31
2.5 Gross Solids Controls.................................................................................................................................. 32
2.6 Outfall Stormwater Controls ....................................................................................................................... 36
2.6.1 Wet Detention Ponds and Wetlands ...................................................................................................... 36
2.6.2 Infiltration Ponds ................................................................................................................................. 52
2.7 Public Works Practices ............................................................................................................................... 57
2.7.1 Street Cleaning..................................................................................................................................... 57
2.7.2 Catchbasin Cleaning ............................................................................................................................ 59
2.8 Critical Source Area Controls...................................................................................................................... 59
2.8.1 Hydrodynamic Separators .................................................................................................................... 60
2.8.1.1 Continuous Deflective SeparatorTM (CDS) .........................................................60

2.8.1.2 Downstream DefenderTM ....................................................................................60
2.8.1.3 StormceptorTM....................................................................................................60
2.8.1.4 VortechsTM .........................................................................................................60
2.8.2 Oil-Water Separator............................................................................................................................. 63
2.8.3 Storm Drain Inlet Inserts...................................................................................................................... 63
2.9 Stormwater Filters ...................................................................................................................................... 64
2.9.1 Austin and Delaware Sand-Filters ........................................................................................................ 64
2.9.2 Washington, D.C. Sand Filter............................................................................................................... 67
2.9.3 Storm-Filter...................................................................................................................................... 68
2.9.4 Multi-Chambered Treatment Train ....................................................................................................... 69
2.10 Conservation Design Controls ................................................................................................................... 71
2.10.1 Grass Filter Strips.............................................................................................................................. 72

2.10.2 Grass Swales...................................................................................................................................... 77
2.10.3 Permeable Pavement .......................................................................................................................... 84
2.10.4 Infiltration Trenches........................................................................................................................... 89
2.10.5 Green Roofs ....................................................................................................................................... 98
2.10.6 Bioretention/Rain gardens.................................................................................................................. 98
2.10.7 Cisterns and Water Storage for Reuse................................................................................................. 99
2.11 Education Programs ................................................................................................................................ 100
2.13 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 106
Chapter III...................................................................................................................................................... 107
Cost Estimation Spreadsheet Model - Conventional Stormwater Conveyance System .......................................... 107
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 107
3.2 Cost Estimation Model.............................................................................................................................. 107
3.2.1 Pipe Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 114
3.2.2 Excavation Trench Cost...................................................................................................................... 116
3.2.3 Bedding Cost ..................................................................................................................................... 119
3.2.4 Backfill Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 119
3.2.5 Inlet and Catchbasin Costs.................................................................................................................. 120
3.2.6 Manhole Cost..................................................................................................................................... 126
3.2.7 Manhole Grating Cover ...................................................................................................................... 129
3.2.8 Curbs and Gutters............................................................................................................................... 130
3.3 Total Drainage System Cost ...................................................................................................................... 130
Chapter IV ......................................................................................................................................................... 133
Example Application of Spreadsheet for Calculating Traditional ......................................................................... 133
Drainage System Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 133
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 133
4.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................... 134
4.3 Design Computations................................................................................................................................ 136
4.4 Cost Estimation Using Spreadsheet Model ................................................................................................ 139
4.5 Grass Swales as an Alternative Stormwater Conveyance System ............................................................... 141
4.5.1 Subarea A .......................................................................................................................................... 141
4.5.2 Subarea B........................................................................................................................................... 141
4.5.3 Subarea C........................................................................................................................................... 141
4.5.4 Subarea D .......................................................................................................................................... 141
4.6 Costs for Grass Swales Estimated Using WinSLAMM .............................................................................. 142
4.7 Comparison of Costs for Swales and Conventional Pipes........................................................................... 144
Chapter V........................................................................................................................................................... 148
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................ 148
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 161
Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................... 165
ENR Cost Indices............................................................................................................................................... 165
ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Relative Land Consumption of Stormwater ...................................................................2
Table 2. Lookup Table for Corrugated.......................................................................................12
Table 3. Lookup Table for Reinforced.......................................................................................12
Table 4. Average Non-pipe Costs Associated with Sanitary Sewers ..........................................13
Table 5. Trench Excavation Costs (RS Means, 2006) ................................................................13
Table 6. Bedding Costs, (RS Means, 2006) ...............................................................................14
Table 7. Backfill Costs w.r.t Backhoe Size (RS Means, 2006) ...................................................14
Table 8. Manhole Costs (RS Means, 2006)................................................................................15
Table 9. Manhole Grate Costs (RS Means, 2006) ......................................................................15
Table 10. Capital Costs of Sewage Pump Stations (RS Means, 2006) ........................................16
Table 11. Paving Costs (RS Means, 2006).................................................................................17
Table 12. Cost of Inlets for Different Depths (RS Means, 2006)................................................19
Table 13. Curb and Gutter Costs (RS Means, 2006) ..................................................................20
Table 14. Construction Costs for Earthen Ponds (US EPA, 1976)..............................................22
Table 15. Construction Costs for Concrete Reservoir without Cover (US EPA, 1976) ...............22
Table 16. Construction Costs for Concrete Reservoir with Cover (US EPA, 1976) ....................23
Table 17. Estimated Capital Cost of Storage as a Function of Volume (US EPA, 2002) ............23
Table 18. GSRD Installation Costs (CALTRANS, 2003) ..........................................................33
Table 19. Cost of Floatable and Oil Removal Devices (APWA, 1992) ......................................34
Table 20. Costs of Solids Removal Practices (APWA, 1992).....................................................35
Table 21. Summary of Reported Costs (January, 1989 $) of Wet Detention Ponds (SEWRPC,
1991) ........................................................................................................................................38
Table 22. Estimated Capital Cost of a 0.25-acre Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991) ...........41
Table 23. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1-acre Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991) ................42
Table 26. Summary of Capital Costs for Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991).......................45
Table 27. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics for CALTRANS ......................47
Table 28. Design Characteristics of CALTRANS Extended Detention Ponds (CALTRANS,
2001) ........................................................................................................................................48
Table 29. Construction Costs of Wet Detention Ponds (CALTRANS, 2001) .............................49
Table 30. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs of Wet Detention Ponds
(SEWRPC, 1991)......................................................................................................................50
Table 31. Chemical Treatment, Alum or Ferric Chloride Injection (Peluso et al., 2002) ............51
Table 32. Equations for Estimating Costs of Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991).......................53
Table 33. Estimated Capital Cost of a 0.25-acre Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991) .................54
Table 34. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1.0-acre Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991) ...................55
Table 35. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs of Infiltration Ponds (SEWRPC,
1991) ........................................................................................................................................56
Table 36. Reported Costs of Street Cleaners (SEWRPC, 1991) .................................................57
Table 37. Reported Unit Costs for Street Cleaning Programs (SEWRPC, 1991) ........................58
Table 38. CALTRANS Catchbasin Cleaning Costs ...................................................................59
Table 39. Costs of Hydrodynamic Separators (US EPA, 1999; Stormceptor, 1997) ...................61
Table 40. CALTRANS Oil-water Separator Costs.....................................................................63
Table 41. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Oil-Water ...................................................63
iii
Table 42. CALTRANS Storm Drain Inlet Costs (CALTRNS, 2001) .........................................64
Table 43. Average Annual Maintenance Costs of Storm Drain Inlet Inserts...............................64
Table 44. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics for Sand Filters ........................65
Table 45. Design Characteristics of the CALTRANS Sand Filters (CALTRANS, 2001) ...........65
Table 46. Actual Construction Costs for Sand Filters (CALTRANS, 2001) ...............................66
Table 47. Adjusted Construction Costs for Sand Filters.............................................................66
Table 48. Actual Average Annual Maintenance Effort for Sand Filters......................................67
Table 49. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final Version of Sand Filter........................67
Table 50. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics .................................................68
Table 51. Design Characteristics of the CALTRANS Storm-Filter (CALTRANS, 2001)...........68
Table 52. Actual Construction Cost for Storm-Filter .................................................................68
Table 53. Adjusted Construction Costs for Storm-Filter, ...........................................................68
Table 54. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final Version of Storm-Filter .....................69
Table 55. Summary of Contributing Watersheds Characteristics for CALTRANS MCTT Retrofit
Program (CALTRANS, 2001)...................................................................................................70
Table 56. Design Characteristics for CALTRANS MCTT Retrofit Program..............................70
Table 57. Actual Construction Costs for MCTTs.......................................................................71
Table 58. Adjusted Construction Costs for MCTTs ...................................................................71
Table 59. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final...........................................................71
Table 60. Estimated Capital Cost of a 25-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991).......73
Table 61. Estimated Capital Cost of a 50-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991).......74
Table 62. Estimation of Capital Cost of a 100-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991)
.................................................................................................................................................75
Table 63. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Grassed Filter Strips
(SEWRPC, 1991)......................................................................................................................76
Table 64. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1.5-foot Deep, 10-feet Wide, 1,000-feet Long Grass Swale
(SEWRPC, 1991)......................................................................................................................78
Table 65. Estimated Capital Cost of a 3.0-feet Deep, 21-feet Wide, 1,000-feet Long Grass Swale
(SEWRPC, 1991)......................................................................................................................79
Table 66. Summary of Capital Costs in Thousands of Dollars ...................................................80
Table 67. Constants A, B, C Values in Capital Cost Equation....................................................81
Table 68. Summary of O&M Costs for Grass Swales (SEWRPC, 1991)....................................81
Table 69. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Grass Swales (SEWRPC, 1991)
.................................................................................................................................................82
Table 70. Constants m, B Values in O&M Cost Equation for ....................................................83
Table 71. Estimated Incremental Cost of a 1.0-acre Permeable Pavement Parking Lot (SEWRPC,
1991) ........................................................................................................................................86
Table 72. Incremental Average Annual Maintenance Costs (Over Conventional Pavement) of a
Permeable Pavement Parking Lot (SEWRPC, 1991) .................................................................87
Table 73. Summary of Incremental Capital and O&M Costs for Permeable...............................87
Table 74. Estimated Capital Cost of a 3-feet Deep, 4-feet Wide, 100-feet Long Infiltration
Trench (SEWRPC, 1991) ..........................................................................................................91
Table 75. Estimated Capital Cost of a 6-feet Deep, 10-feet Wide, 100-feet Long Infiltration
Trench (SEWRPC, 1991) ..........................................................................................................92
Table 76. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for ..............................................94
Table 77. Summary of Capital Cost of Biofilters for Different Trench Widths and ....................95
iv
Table 78. m, B Values for Different Depths for Biofiltration Device .........................................96
Table 79. Summary of O&M Costs for Biofiltration Device, .....................................................96
Table 80. m,B Values for O&M Cost Equation for Biofiltration Device ....................................97
Table 81. Capital, Maintenance and Life Cycle Costs of Green Roofs .......................................98
Table 82. Average Water Used from Roof Runoff for Each Building ......................................100
Table 83. Annual Roof Runoff Used for Irrigation for .............................................................100
Table 84. Unit Program Costs for Public Education.................................................................101
Table 85. 1997 Budget for Some Aspects of the Public Education Costs in Seattle, Washington,
(US EPA, 1999) ......................................................................................................................102
Table 86. Costs of Institutional Source Controls (APWA, 1992) .............................................103
Table 87. Trench Bottom Width for Outside Diameters...........................................................116
Table 88. IDF Curve Values for Huntsville, Alabama..............................................................133
Table 89. Diameter Calculations for Subarea A.......................................................................137
Table 90. Diameter Calculations for Subarea B .......................................................................137
Table 91. Diameter Calculations for Subarea C1 .....................................................................137
Table 92. Diameter Calculations for Subarea C2 .....................................................................138
Table 93. Diameter Calculations for Subarea D.......................................................................138
Table 94. Summary of Input Data Used in the Spreadsheet Model...........................................140
Table 95. Summary of Estimated Costs using the Spreadsheet Model .....................................141
Table 96. Costs of Grass Swales for Each Subarea ..................................................................144
Table 97. Summary of Costs from WinSLAMM and the Spreadsheet Model ..........................147
List of Figures
Figure 1. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 0.57 Mgal V 14.8 Mgal ...........24
Figure 2. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 14.8 Mgal < V < 50.85 Mgal .........25
Figure 3. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 50.85 Mgal V 187.8 Mgal .......25
Figure 4. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir (without cover), 1 Mgal V 30 Mgal .....26
Figure 5. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir (without cover), 30 Mgal V 600 Mgal .27
Figure 6. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir (without cover), 60 Mgal V 240 Mgal .27
Figure 7. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 1 Mgal V 30 Mgal..............................28
Figure 8. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 30 Mgal V 600 Mgal ..........................29
Figure 9. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 60 Mgal V 240 Mgal ..........................29
Figure 10. Comparison of Construction Costs of Deep Tunnel and Surface Storage ..................31
Figure 11. Construction Costs of Swirl Concentrators, Screens, Sedimentation .........................32
Figure 12. Comparison of Construction Costs of Detention, Retention and CSO Storage...........37
Figure 13. Cost of Wet Detention Pond for Different Water Storage Volumes...........................45
Figure 14. Detention Pond Cost Selection and Input Screen in WinSLAMM.............................46
Figure 15. Capital Cost of Grass Swale for Different Swale Depths...........................................80
Figure 16. Operation and Maintenance Cost of Grass Swale for Different Swale Depths ...........83
Figure 17. Cost Data Input Screen for Grass Swales in WinSLAMM ........................................84
Figure 18. Cost of Permeable Pavement for Different Stone Reservoir Depths ..........................88
Figure 19. Cost Data Input Screen for Permeable Pavement in WinSLAMM ............................89
Figure 20. Capital Cost of Biofiltration Device for Different Bottom Widths ............................95
Figure 21. O&M Costs of Biofiltration Devices for Different Trench Widths ............................96
Figure 22. Cost Data Input Screen for Biofiltration Device in WinSLAMM ..............................97
Figure 23. Stormwater Conveyance System Components ........................................................108
Figure 24. Cross Section View of Stormwater Conveyance System Components ....................109
Figure 25. Portion of the Input Screen of Spreadsheet Model ..................................................110
Figure 26. Flowsheet Representation of Spreadsheet Model ....................................................112
Figure 27. Pipe Material Input Cells ........................................................................................114
Figure 28. Pipe Diameter Input Cells.......................................................................................114
Figure 29. Stormwater Conveyance Pipe Costs for Different Diameter....................................115
Figure 30. Trench Bottom Widths for Different Pipe Diameters ..............................................116
Figure 31. Transverse View of Excavation Trench Showing Components ...............................117
Figure 32. Trench Parameter Input Values...............................................................................118
Figure 33. Bedding Parameter Input Cells ...............................................................................119
Figure 34. Backfill Data Input Cells ........................................................................................120
Figure 35. Stormwater Catchbasin Inlet...................................................................................121
Figure 36. Capital Cost for Catchbasin Inlet of 4 ft. ID............................................................122
Figure 39. Inlet and Manholes Input Cells ...............................................................................123
Figure 40. Error Display if Inputted Inlet Depth is Smaller than Trench Depth ........................125
Figure 41. Cross Section View of Manhole .............................................................................126
Figure 42. Capital Cost of 4 ft. ID Brick Manhole ...................................................................127
Figure 43. Capital Cost of 4 ft. ID Concrete Manhole..............................................................128
Figure 44. Capital Cost of 4 ft. * 4 ft., 8 in. Thick Concrete Cast-in-place Manhole.................128
vi
Figure 45. Manhole/Junction Box Input Cells..........................................................................129

Figure 46. Manhole Grating Cover Selection Cells..................................................................129
Figure 47. Illustration of Curb and Gutter................................................................................130
Figure 48. Curb and Gutter Input Cells....................................................................................130
Figure 49. Estimated Costs by Spreadsheet Model ..................................................................131
Figure 50. IDF Curves for Huntsville, Alabama ......................................................................134
Figure 51. Map of the Industrial Site in Huntsville, Alabama Showing the Direction of Flow and
Inlet Locations ........................................................................................................................135
Figure 52. WinSLAMM Grass Swales Input Parameters Screen..............................................142
Figure 53. Cost Data Selection Screen for Grass Swales in WinSLAMM ................................143
Figure 54. WinSLAMM Output Screen Showing Costs for Grass Swale for Subarea C...........144
Figure 55. Total Control Practice Costs Output Screen in WinSLAMM ..................................145
Figure 56. Stormwater Conveyance System Total Costs Display Screen in Spreadsheet Model
...............................................................................................................................................146
Figure 57. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 0.25-acre Wet Detention Pond ...................149
Figure 58. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Wet Detention Pond........................150
Figure 61. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 0.25-acre Infiltration Pond ...................153
Figure 62. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Infiltration Pond ........................153
Figure 63. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 25-feet Wide Grass Filter Strip ............154
Figure 64. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 50-feet Wide Grass Filter Strip ............155
Figure 65. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 100-feet Wide Grass Filter Strip ..........155
Figure 66. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1.5-foot Deep, 10-feet Wide Grass Swale ..156
Figure 67. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 3-foot Deep, 21-feet Wide Grass Swale .....157
Figure 68. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Permeable Pavement Installation.....158
Figure 69. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 3-feet Deep, 4-feet Wide, 100-feet Long
Infiltration Trench...................................................................................................................159
Infiltration Trench...................................................................................................................159
vii
Abstract
This research presents a method to determine the costs of several types of stormwater
control practices including the costs of conventional drainage system. Several published
literature sources were reviewed that contained costs of control practices. Standard unit cost data
used in developing the conventional conveyance drainage system costs were obtained from RS
Means. The cost data were transformed into equations and utilized to develop the cost module
for the Source Loading and Management Model (WinSLAMM). An Excel spreadsheet model
was also developed to estimate the costs of conventional stormwater drainage systems based on
the published unit cost data. In an example, the costs estimated by the spreadsheet model were
compared to the costs associated with the stormwater control practices as estimated by
WinSLAMM for a 250-acre industrial site in Huntsville, AL. The costs of site biofiltration,
large-scale grass swales, and a wet detention pond were compared to the costs for the
conventional drainage system.
The cost information available from published literature sources and other references
were in the form of tables and equations. The cost information gathered provided regional cost
estimates for the control practices for a specific year. Cost indices published by the Engineering
News Record were used to estimate the present costs from historical cost information and at
locations where cost information is unavailable. These cost indices, from 1978 to 2005, were
incorporated into WinSLAMM and the spreadsheet model.
Based on the cost data obtained form Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (1991), the component(s) that affected the control practice cost the most were also
analyzed.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Center for Economic
Development and Resource Stewardship (CEDARS) of Nashville, TN, for their funding which
has allowed us to develop additional extensions to WinSLAMM. The Stormwater Management
Authority of Jefferson County, AL, is also acknowledged for their support.
viii
Chapter I
Introduction
1.1 Background
Cost estimation plays a major role in all project management activities. Forecasting the
total life-cycle project cost for different alternatives is a vital step in any decision-making
activity. The life-cycle project costs include the initial construction costs, in addition to longterm maintenance costs, and eventual replacement costs. When considering replacements and
alternatives for historical infrastructure components, costs of the historically standard approach
and the new alternatives need to calculated in similar ways and include similar cost components.
In urban stormwater management, there are costs for the stormwater control practices, plus costs
for stormwater conveyance components, and the associated operation and maintenance costs.
Developers, city planners, engineers, funding agencies, government and private agencies are
interested in determining these costs for a project before its start. Cost also plays a major role in
decision analysis when choosing the most cost-effective program when multiple objectives need
to be considered and when more than one program can deliver the desired benefits.
1.2 Project Objectives

This research provides a consolidated and summary of information obtained from the a
number of sources that reported on costs of stormwater controls, plus additional specialized
references. The costs of the following stormwater control practices have been examined during
this research: outfall stormwater controls (wet detention ponds, dry detention ponds, wet lands,
infiltration ponds, and chemical treatment), critical source area controls (hydrodynamic
separators, oil-water separators, storm drain inlet inserts, stormwater filters, and the multichambered treatment train), conservation design controls (grass filter strips, grass swales,
permeable pavement, infiltration trenches, rain gardens, biofilters, bioretention devices, green
roofs, and cisterns for water storage), public work practices (street cleaning and catchbasin
cleaning), combined sewage overflow controls that can be applied to stormwater (surface
storage, deep tunnels, swirl concentrators, screens, sedimentation basins, and disinfection), gross
solids controls, and the costs associated with educational programs. The costs of these control
practices reported in various sources were compiled, summarizes, and evaluated as a part of this
thesis. This information is presented in the form given in the reports (tables, equations, and
figures), and describes the information sources (locations and dates) of the information (if
available), for each reference. Section 4.7 also has a comparison of the different costs for a
typical application. This research also includes a review of Engineering News Record (ENR) cost
indices that can be used to adjust the costs for different years and locations to current conditions
for many US locations.
The cost data for the following control practices were used to develop the cost module for
WinSLAMM (the Source Loading and Management Model for Windows): wet detention ponds,
permeable pavement, street cleaning, catchbasin cleaning, biofiltration devices, and grass swales.
WinSLAMM estimates the runoff volume and associated pollutants in urban runoff from
specified land uses. WinSLAMM also enables the designing of control practices for the area
under consideration and estimates their corresponding effect on runoff and pollutant loadings.
The new cost module enables the user to estimate the cost of implementing and maintaining the
selected control practices for the land use.
An Excel spreadsheet model was also developed to supplement the cost estimates made
by WinSLAMM. This spreadsheet calculates the capital cost, present value of all costs, and
annualized value of all initial construction and maintenance costs for a conventional stormwater
conveyance system using 2006 RS Means Building Construction Cost Data (64th Annual
Edition). This spreadsheet model was used during this research to compare the costs of grass
swales (computed using WinSLAMM) with the costs of a conventional stormwater conveyance
system comprised of curbs and gutters with underground pipes at a new 250-acre industrial park
in Huntsville, Alabama.
1.3 Cost Analysis Elements

1.3.1 Total Costs
The total cost includes capital (construction and land) and annual operation and
maintenance costs. Capital costs occur when the stormwater control component is installed,
unless retrofits or up-sizing occurs at a later time. Capital costs also include added financing
costs that are amortized over the life of the project. The operation and maintenance costs occur
periodically throughout the life of the stormwater control device or practice.
1.3.2 Capital Costs
Capital cost consists primarily of land cost, construction cost, and related site work.
Capital costs include all land, labor, equipment and materials costs, excavation and grading,
control structure, erosion control, landscaping, and appurtenances. It also includes expenditures
for professional/technical services that are necessary to support the construction of the
stormwater control device. Capital costs depend on site conditions, size of drainage area and land
costs that vary greatly from site to site.
Land costs are site specific and also depend on the surrounding land use. The land
requirements vary depending on type of stormwater control, as shown in Table 1. These values
are the approximate areas needed for each of the listed controls, in relation to the impervious
area in the watershed. As an example, wet detention ponds (retention ponds) should be sized to
be about 2 to 3% of the total impervious area in the watershed, while grass filter strips need to be
about the same size as the total impervious areas draining towards them.
Table 1. Relative Land Consumption of Stormwater
Controls (US EPA, 1999)
Land Consumption
Stormwater Control
(% of Impervious Area
Type
of the Watershed)
Retention Basin
2 to 3%
Constructed Wetland
3 to 5%
Infiltration Trench
2 to 3%
Infiltration Basin
2 to 3%
Permeable Pavement
0%
Sand Filters
0 to 3%
Bioretention
Swales
Filter Strips
5%
10 to 20%
100%
1.3.3 Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs

Design and permitting costs include costs for site investigations, surveys, design, and
planning for the stormwater controls. Contingency costs are the unexpected costs incurred during
the development and construction of a stormwater control practice. They are expressed as a
fraction of the base capital cost and have been considered uniform for all stormwater controls.
During the calculation of capital costs, 25% of the calculated base capital cost should be added
that includes design, permitting, and contingency fees (Wiegand, et al. 1986; CWP 1998; and
U.S. EPA 1999) and 5% to 7% of the calculated base capital cost that includes cost of erosion
and sediment control (Brown and Schueler 1997; U.S.EPA 1999; and CWP 1998).
1.3.4 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
Operation and maintenance are post construction activities and ensure the effectiveness
of an installed stormwater control practice. They include labor; materials; labor, energy and
equipment for landscape maintenance; structural maintenance; sediment removal from sediment
control devices and associated disposal; and litter removal. Similar to the design, permitting and
contingency costs, the operations and maintenance costs are usually expressed as an annual
percentage of capital costs, or the actual costs can be determined. Total annual O&M costs for
both routine activities (periodic site inspections, grass mowing, litter and debris removal, bank
stabilization, and maintenance of site vegetation for erosion control) and sediment removal was
estimated to range from 3 to 5% of base construction costs for pond stormwater controls
(Wiegand, et al, 1986).
1.3.5 Life Cycle Costs
Life cycle costs are all the costs that occur during the life time of the stormwater control
device. It includes design, construction, O&M, and closeout activities. Life cycle costs can be
used to help select the most cost-effective stormwater control option. Life cycle costs include the
initial capital cost and the present worth of annual O&M costs that are incurred over time, less
the present worth of the salvage value at the end of the service life (Sample, et al. 2003).
1.4 Research Outline

A stormwater conveyance system is a facility that is generally owned and maintained by
the municipality to collect stormwater in the form of runoff and convey them to the nearest
storage location for treatment or discharge into a nearest waterbody. During the conveyance of
the stormwater through the facility, the stormwater may or may not undergo treatment depending
on the type of the conveyance system. Grass swales, grass filter strips, porous pavement,
infiltration trenches, rain gardens, biofilters, and green roofs are common stormwater
conveyance systems that may treat the stormwater during conveyance. Stormwater can also be
conveyed above ground through unlined ditches not created specifically for the purpose of
conveying the stormwater. However, the traditional stormwater conveyance system in which the
stormwater is collected or the stormwater is channeled through a grated opening that goes to a
pipe and connects to the underground stormwater sewer system, offers few treatment
opportunities.
The stormwater can also be treated through controls such as wet detention ponds and
wetlands, chemical treatment by using alum or ferric chloride or infiltration ponds. The
stormwater conveyance system network inlets can be fitted with catchbasin inserts, or replaced
with hydrodynamic devices at critical source areas. These include hydrodynamic separators such
as the Downstream Defender, Stormceptor, Vortechs, Multi Chambered Treatment Trains,
stormwater filters such as Upflow Filters, and other inserts with specific functions such as oilwater separators, and gross solid removal devices. Public work practices such as street cleaning
and catchbasin cleaning also aim at reducing the pollutants in the stormwater runoff before it
enters the conveyance system. The costs involved in the construction, operation and maintenance
of all the listed stormwater quality and quantity control practices have been discussed in Chapter
II.
The cost data available in published literature was used in WinSLAMM and the
spreadsheet model by transforming the data into equations. Chapter III discusses these regression
equations that were developed and their implementation into the models.
The calculations and the processing of entered data by the Excel spreadsheet model is
discussed in Chapter IV. The spreadsheet model was then applied to a 250 acre industrial site in
Huntsville, Alabama. The site consists of 50 plots divided into four subareas based on the
direction of natural drainage flows. The runoff from three of the subareas are drained through the
stormwater pipe network into two different detention ponds located within the site and the forth
subarea drains outside the site. The cost of this stormwater conveyance system being constructed
at this site was estimated using the spreadsheet model. The site description, the hydrology
calculations and the cost estimates for constructing the stormwater drainage conveyance system
is discussed in Chapter V. Chapter VI presents the results and conclusions. Appendix A shows
the cost adjustment factors for different locations based on ENR cost indices that have been
incorporated into the spreadsheet model, the construction cost index values vs. time for different
years for each city are given by ENR. Thiessen polygons are drawn for the US showing the areas
that are best represented by each of the 20 cities where ENR cost indices are available.
Chapter II
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter gives a brief introduction to the different cost estimation methodologies that
can be used to calculate the costs of stormwater control practices. These methodologies are
employed to estimate the costs of the stormwater control practices from available design
information or unit cost information. Several equations developed using one or more of the
methodologies are presented in this chapter. Also presented in the form of tables are the
component and total costs of the following stormwater quality control practices:
Conventional stormwater conveyance system components:
Pipelines
Trench excavation
Bedding
Backfill
Manhole
Inlets
Paving
Pump stations
Combined sewage overflow controls that can be applied to stormwater systems:
Surface storage
Earthen and concrete basins
Deep tunnels
Swirl concentrators, screens, sedimentation basins, and disinfection
Gross solid controls

Outfall stormwater controls:
Wet detention ponds and wetlands
Chemical treatment (alum and ferric chloride use)
Infiltration ponds
Public work practices:
Street cleaning
Catchbasin cleaning
Critical source area controls:
Hydrodynamic separators
Oil-water separator
Storm drain inlet inserts
Stormwater filters
Multi-chambered treatment train (MCTT)

Conservation design controls:
Grass filter strips
Grass swales
Permeable pavement
Infiltration trenches, rain gardens, biofilters, and bioretention devices
Green roofs
Cisterns and rain barrels for water storage for reuse

Educational programs
2.2 Cost Estimation Methodologies

The five common methodologies of cost estimation are as follows (DOD, 1995):
Bottom-Up Method
Top-Down Method
Analogy Method
Expert Judgment
Algorithm/Parametric Method
2.2.1 Bottom-Up Method
This method involves identifying and estimating the costs of individual components of a
project and then combining these costs to estimate the cost of the entire project.
2.2.2 Top-Down Method
Costs of the entire project are estimated by partitioning the project into lower-level
components and life cycle phases beginning at the highest level.
2.2.3 Analogy Method
In this technique, the cost data available from a previously completed project is
extrapolated to estimate the cost of a proposed project.
2.2.4 Expert Judgment Method
This method involves consulting experts in the field to estimate the cost of a proposed
project using their experience and their understanding of the proposed project.
2.2.4 Algorithmic or Parametric Method
In this method, equations to estimate costs are derived from research or historical cost
data. Cost equations can use a single or multiple explanatory variables. The equation forms an
efficient way to represent a database in the form of a single equation. Equations 2.1 and 2.2
represent single and multiple explanatory variable equations respectively.
C = axb
(2.1)
where
C = Cost, $,
x = independent variable such as measure of component size, and
a,b = constants, depends on overall physical characteristics of component.
C = f ( x1 , x 2 ,..., xi ,..., x n )
(2.2)
where
C = Cost, $, and
xi = independent variable such as component size
Combinations of one or more of these methods were used to estimate the costs in this
research. To estimate the costs of the conventional stormwater conveyance network, the bottom-
up method was followed by breaking down the system into separate components such as trench
excavation, bedding, pipe installation, backfill, manholes, inlets and curbs and gutters and then
combining these costs to estimate the cost of the entire project. For estimating the cost of the
control practices, the algorithmic method was followed by fitting equations to available regional
cost data. These equations were representative of costs with one or more of the design
components. These costs were then adjusted to present costs at a desired location using ENR
building construction cost indices (analogy method).
2.3 Cost Estimates for Stormwater/Wastewater Conveyance Systems

2.3.1 Pipeline costs
Wastewater collection network costs developed by Dajani, et al. (1971) were used by
fitting regression models to data from actual construction bids by the following multiple
regression equation:
C = a + bD 2 + cX 2
(2.3)
where
C = construction cost, $,
D = pipe diameter, ft, and
X = average depth of excavation, ft
Rawls et al. (1972) presented a nonlinear relationship for predicting costs of urban
drainage systems using land-use parameters by examining data from 126 small urban drainage
systems received from agencies in Florida, Virginia, Washington D.C., Maryland, Tennessee,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, California,
Arkansas, Oregon, and Missouri. The 1963 national average cost for each project was chosen
because the reported costs from these agencies were for that year.
(2.4)
where
C = 58,273 + 8.73 T 0.04 S 0.89CR 0.64 DB 0.23Q 0.73 AD 0.71
T = design return period, years,

S = ground slope, ft/1,000 ft.,
CR = runoff coefficient,
DB = smallest pipe size, in.,
Q = total capacity, cfs, and
AD = total developed area, ac.
Pipe construction costs as a function of diameter and invert depth was developed by
Merritt and Bogan (1973) using graphical relationships.
Grigg and OHearn (1976) presented storm drainage pipe costs as a function of pipe
diameter, return period and urbanization factor:
C = (1 + E ) C1 ( D) U
(2.5)
where
C = total drainage cost, $,
E = other costs such as design, construction, and incidental costs that approximate the
direct installation cost, %,
C1(D)= cost of pipe ($) as a function of diameter, D (in.) using published unit cost data,
and
U = utilization factor, a function of return period and percentage imperviousness
Based on the rainfall data for Englewood, Colorado, it was illustrated that cost increased rapidly
between 1-year and 10-year designs with considerable leveling after that.
Tyteca (1976) presented the costs of wastewater conveyance systems as a function of
diameter and length of pipe of the following form
C=
(2.6)
K
+ D
L
where
C = total capital cost, $,
L = length of pipe, m,
K = fixed cost, $,
D = diameter, m, and
, = parameters
K and range are difficult to specify and relate to ground conditions and obstacles. It is
possible to estimate these three parameters by regression analysis. For the Belgium case study
where extreme conditions were encountered Tyteca (1976) developed different cost functions for
three different terrains:
For meadows,
C
= 20 + 93D 1.681
L
(2.7)
For river banks,
C
= 40 + 144 D1.197
L
(2.8)
For rivers and in urban areas,
C
= 126 + 180 D
L
(2.9)
However, these regression equations had little transferability in space and time.
For small urban drainage systems Knapp (1967) presented prediction models (2.10 and
2.11) that can be used to calculate investment costs for conventional storm drainage facilities
based on several sets of information on typical urban drainage systems collected from municipal
agencies around the country and using 1963 national average costs.
C = 42Q 0.53 L0.56 S 0.14 I 0.27 R 0.53
(2.10)
where
C = cost, $,
Q = capacity, cfs,
S = slope, %,
I = number of inlets, and
R = runoff factor
(2.11)
C
L
L
Q
I
= 74.3 + 6.1 + 214 + 689 + 0.031 0.5
A
A
A
A
S
where
C
= cost per acre, $/ac,
A
L
= drainage density, ft/ac,
A
Q
= runoff intensity, cfs/ac,
A
I
= number of inlets per acre, and
A
L
S 0.5
= length-slope factor, with S in percentage
Storm sewer pipe cost was estimated by Han, et al. (1980) as a part of an optimization
model. They used the following equations:
For H 20 feet, D 36 inches
C = 1.93 + 1.688H 12.6
(2.12)
For H > 20 feet, D 36 inches,
C = 0.692D + 2.14 H + 0.559DH 13.56
(2.13)
For D > 36 inches,
C = 3.638 D + 5.17 H 111.72
(2.14)
where
C = installation cost of the pipe, $/ft,
D = diameter, in. and
H = invert depth, ft.
The total cost of the drainage network was then estimated as the sum of pipe material cost, laying
cost and the manhole cost expressed in the form:
Ct = ( L * C p ) + ( L * C ) + C m
(2.15)
where
Ct = total cost of drainage network, $,
L = length of pipe, ft,
Cp = unit cost of pipe material, $/LF,
C = installation cost of pipe, $/ft given by equations 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14, and
Cm = manhole cost, $
Meredith (1972) presented installed sewer pipe costs ($/linear foot of pipe) as a function
of pipe diameter and mean invert depth below the ground surface H:
For d < 36 inches and H < 10 feet,
C = 13.0 + 0.8( H 10) + 0.915(d 12)
(2.16)
For d < 36 inches and H > 10 feet,
C = 13.0 + [1.67 + 0.042( d 12)]( H 10) + 0.915(d 12)
(2.17)
For d > 36 inches,
C = 128.0 + 4.9( H 11) + 2.5(d 72)
(2.18)
where
C = cost of installed sewer pipe, $
H = mean invert depth, ft, and
d = pipe diameter, in.
To estimate the costs of water resources infrastructure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(1979) developed MAPS software. The software used a process engineering oriented approach
for estimating costs. For calculating the costs for gravity pipes, the following data were required:
Flow (maximum and minimum), MGD
Length, ft
Initial elevation, ft
9
Final elevation, ft
Terrain multipliers
Design life (default = 50 years)
Mannings n (default = 0.015)
Number and depth of drop manholes
Rock excavation, % of total excavation
Depth of cover, ft (default = 5 ft)
Dry or wet soil conditions
Cost overrides
The average annual cost is calculated as:
(2.19)
AAC = AMR + TOTOM
where
AAC = average annual cost, $/yr
AMR = amortized capital cost, $/yr
TOTOM = annual O&M cost, $/yr
The amortized capital cost is:
(2.20)
AMR = CRF * PW
where
CRF = capital recovery cost, and
PW = capital cost, $
The capital costs are estimated as:
(2.21)
PW = CC + OVH + PLAND
where
CC = construction cost, $,
OVH = overhead costs, $, and
PLAND = land costs, $
Overhead costs are estimated as:
(2.22)
OVH = 0.25*CC
(2.23) CC = AVC *WETFAC * DEPFAC * XLEN * SECI * CITY * CULT *
(1 + Rock * 2)
where
AVC = unit cost of pipe for average conditions, $/ft,
WETFAC = wetness factor
= 1.2 for wet soil
= 1.0 for average soil
= 0.8 for dry soil
DEPFAC = depth of cover factor
= 0.725 + (0.048 * DEPTH)
DEPTH = depth of cover, ft,
XLEN = length of pipe, ft,
SECI = ENR Construction Cost Index,
CITY = city multiplier,
CULT = terrain multiplier, and
Rock = rock excavation percent of total excavation, in decimal form
10
255.6
The terrain multiplier was calculated as:

(2.24) CULT =
(C1* 0.8131+ C 2 * 0.6033 + C 3 * 0.6985 + C 4 * 0.7169 + C 5 * 0.7911+ C 6 *1.3127)

100
where
C1 = % open country,
C2 = % new residential,
C3 = % sparse residential,
C4 = % dense residential,
C5 = % commercial, and
C6 = % central city
The MAPS formulation is a blend of regression equations and other cost factors. However, the
database did not consider all possible costs.
Moss and Jankiewicz (1982) presented the use of life cycle costing for different pipe
materials based on bids from contractors. They considered three types of sewer materials in their
case study in Winchester, Virginia: reinforced concrete (service life = 75 years), aluminum
coated steel (service life = 25 years), and asphalt-coated galvanized steel (service life = 20
years). The service life depends on various factors such as material durability, in-place structural
durability, abrasive characteristics of the pipe and soil, and corrosive characteristics of both
groundwater and drainage. The service life was estimated based on discussions with
manufacturers, literature searches, and experience. The least common multiple of service life,
300 years in this case, is used for comparison. The present worth is calculated by comparing the
cost of the original installation and three replacement cycles for reinforced concrete, eleven
replacement cycles for aluminum coated steel, and fourteen replacement cycles for asphaltcoated galvanized steel. The salvage cost for each replacement was also included.
RS Means, Building Construction Cost Data, 2006, 64th Annual Edition provides unit
cost data for building components including drainage and containment (stormwater conveyance
pipes, catchbasins, manholes), curb and gutter, earthwork (excavation, backfill, bedding, and
compaction). Cost information provided by RS Means includes materials costs, labor costs, and
equipment costs. Labor costs provided by RS Means include time spent during the normal work
day for tasks other than actual installation, such as material receiving and handling, mobilization
at site, site movement, breaks and cleanup. For materials costs, RS Means provides the national
average materials costs across U.S.
Tables 2 and 3 show the 2006 unit length cost data for corrugated metal pipe (CMP),
galvanized and bituminous coated pipe with paved invert, 16 gauge thickness, and 20 foot
lengths and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) of class 3 and no gaskets. The cost includes material,
labor, equipment and a 10% overhead and profit. The excavation and backfill costs are not
included in this cost.
11
Table 2. Lookup Table for Corrugated

Metal Pipe (RS Means, 2006)
Diameter (in.)
Cost ($/LF)
8
17.55
10
21.5
12
26
15
30
18
35.5
24
43
30
64.5
36
82
48
116
60
155
72
241
Table 3. Lookup Table for Reinforced
Concrete Pipe (RS Means, 2006)
Diameter (in.)
Cost ($/LF)
12
29.5
15
33
18
36
21
43.5
24
50.5
27
69.5
30
74
36
97.5
42
121
48
144
60
216
72
289
84
450
96
550
In case of multipurpose facilities, the cost is affected by the other objectives that the
stormwater system serves. For example, a combined sewer system transports both wastewater
and stormwater. Stormwater detention systems can serve as both quantity and quality controls.
Streets serve as traffic conduits and transport stormwater along their edges. One method used to
divide the costs of multipurpose facilities for individual purposes is to design systems for each
purpose independently, and then design the multipurpose system. The individual costs and the
costs for the combined multipurpose facility are prorated to determine the costs for each purpose
(USEPA, 2002).
The average non-pipe cost associated with sanitary sewer as a percent of total in-place
pipe costs is shown in Table 4.
12
Table 4. Average Non-pipe Costs Associated with Sanitary Sewers

(Dames and Moore, 1978)
Category
Pipe Cost (%)
Sanitary sewer miscellaneous appurtenances
7
Manholes
32
Drop manholes
2
Throughfare crossings
13
Stream crossings
1
Rock excavation
2
Pavement removal and replacement
13
Special bedding
1
Miscellaneous costs not categorized
28
Utility reconnection and removal
1
Total
100
2.3.2 Trench Excavation Costs
Trench excavation cost depends on fixed costs like labor and equipment and materials
costs, but vary with depth and backhoe bucket size (cubic yards). The excavation costs not
including blasting and backfilling are shown in Table 5. This cost includes 10% overhead and
profit.
Table 5. Trench Excavation Costs (RS Means, 2006)
Depth (ft.)
Backhoe Size (CY)
Cost ($/CY)
3/8 CY tractor loader/backhoe
6.30
1-4
4.85
4.85
4-6
5/8 CY hydraulic backhoe
4.94
4.27
5.70
6 - 10
1 CY hydraulic backhoe
3.32
1 1/2 CY hydraulic backhoe
2.59
6.40
10 - 14
3.69
2.87
4.15
14 - 20
3.23
2.67
2.3.3 Bedding Costs
Bedding provides sufficient compacted material necessary to protect the pipe from
external loading forces. Pipe bedding costs vary with pipe diameter, side slope of trench, and the
type of bedding used. Table 6 gives the cost of bedding in dollars per linear cubic yard (not
including compaction) for three different bedding materials.
13
Table 6. Bedding Costs, (RS Means, 2006)

Bedding Material
Cost ($/LCY)
Crushed or screened bank run gravel
31.5
Crushed stone in. to in.
39.5
Sand, dead or bank
13.7
2.3.4 Backfill Costs
Backfill costs depend on backhoe size, hauling distance of backfill material (ft.) and
backfill depth (in.). Table 7 shows the cost in $/LCY for backfilling a trench using a FE Loader.
The cost includes labor, equipment and a 10% overhead and profit.
Table 7. Backfill Costs w.r.t Backhoe Size (RS Means, 2006)
Backfill trench, F.E.Loader
Haul distance (ft.)
Cost ($/LCY)
1 CY bucket
minimum haul
1.47
1 CY bucket
100' haul
2.93
2-1/4 CY bucket
minimum haul
1.18
2-1/4 CY bucket
100' haul
2.36
2.3.5 Manhole Costs
For individual manhole costs, the following single variable equation developed by Han,
et al. (1980) can be used:
Cm = 259.6 + 56.4h
(2.25)
where
Cm = manhole cost, $, and
h = depth of manhole, ft
Meredith (1972) in his work gives the cost of manholes in terms of manhole depths:
Cm = 250 + h 2
(2.26)
where
Cm = installed manhole cost, $, and
h = manhole depth, ft
Dames and Moore (1978) estimate manhole costs indirectly as 36 to 38% of the total inplace pipe cost.
Manhole costs are related to the diameter of the manhole and its depth (i.e. the maximum
difference between the ground elevation and the invert elevations of the storm sewers entering
the manhole, plus the extra depth for a sump). The costs of precast concrete manholes, (not
including excavation, footing, backfill, and covers) are shown in Table 8. The costs include fixed
operations cost and profit, labor, equipment and materials cost for installation of precast concrete
manholes.
14
Table 8. Manhole Costs (RS Means, 2006)

Type
Depth, ft. Cost, $/unit
4
1175
6
1675
Brick, 4 ft. I.D.
8
2275
10
3065
12
3855
4
850
6
1225
Concrete Blocks,
8
1675
4 ft. I.D.
10
2073
12
2471
4
1825
Concrete,
6
2525
Cast-in-place
8
3725
4 ft. 4 ft., 8 in.
10
4635
Thick
12
5545
Table 9 presents the cost for manhole grates. These costs provided by RS Means include
material, labor, equipment, and a 10% overhead and profit cost.
Table 9. Manhole Grate Costs (RS Means, 2006)
Manhole Type
Cost ($/Ea.)
18 in. diameter, 100 lb.
300
Light Traffic
410
745
420
Heavy Traffic
36 in. diameter, 1,150 lb.
1,275
810
Mass. State Standard
585
595
Watertight
590
1,100
24 in. square, 500 lb.
470
26 in. D shape, 600 lb.
700
3 piece cover & frame, 10 in. deep, 1200 lb.
1,700
Similar data on pumping station (fabricated steel, concrete, or fiberglass) costs and
pavement costs (along with subbase costs) were obtained from R.S.Means and are shown in
Tables 10 and 11 respectively. The costs include fixed operations cost and profit, and labor,
equipment and materials costs.
15
Table 10. Capital Costs of Sewage Pump Stations (RS Means, 2006)
Description
Flow Rate (gpm)
Cost ($)
Sewage Pump Station
200
73,000
Sewage Pump Station
1000
135,000
Tyteca (1976) presented cost of pumping stations for stormwater pipelines as a function
of power installations:
C = K '+ W
(2.27)
where
C = total capital cost, $,
K = fixed cost, $,
W = power, hp, and
, = parameters reflecting local conditions such as economies of scale.
16
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Crushed Stone
Bank Run Gravel
Bank Run Gravel
Bank Run Gravel
Binder Course
Binder Course
Binder Course
Binder Course
Prepare and roll subbase > 2500 yd3

Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Base Course
Prime and seal
Asphaltic Concrete Pavement
17
Crushed Stone
Prepare and roll subbase < 2500 yd3
Activity
1.5
1.5
0.75
yd2
yd
yd
yd
1.5
12
yd2
yd2
12
yd2
yd
yd
yd
yd2
2
12
yd2
yd
yd
yd
9.95
7.60
5.25
4.01
1.82
8.60
6.55
4.46
15.75
10.80
8.20
5.75
13.05
9.95
6.90
3.91
yd2
1.54
Cost ($)
0.92
3
Depth
(in.)
yd2
yd2
Table 11. Paving Costs (RS Means, 2006)

Diameter
Material
Unit
(in.)

Activity
18
Table.11 Continued.
Diameter
Material
(in.)
Wearing Course
1
Wearing Course
Wearing Course
Wearing Course
Wearing Course
yd2
yd2
yd2
yd2
yd2
Unit
Depth
(in.)
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
2.92
4.34
5.70
6.95
8.20
Cost ($)
An example use of this data to calculate paving costs of a 30 feet wide subdivision street,
with 12 inch bank run gravel base material, a primer, a wearing course of 2 inch of asphaltic
concrete pavement, and curb and gutter (both sides):
Base course: 5.1 $/yd3 * 30 ft * yd2/9 ft2 = 17 $/ft
Primer: 1.82 $/yd2 * 30 ft * yd2/9 ft2 = 6.07 $/ ft
Pavement: 4.52 $/ yd2 * 30 ft * yd2/9 ft2 = 15.07 $/ft
Curb and gutter: 6.95 $/ft * 2 = 13.90 $/ft
Total cost per linear ft: $17 + $6.07 + $15.07 + $13.09 = $52.04
The cost per linear foot would increase with an increase in projected traffic that requires an
increase in pavement thickness.
2.3.6 Inlet Costs
Stormwater enters the subsurface drainage system through inlets in roadway gutters,
parking lots, depressions, ditches and other locations. The costs for unit precast catch basin inlets
for different inside diameters and depths are provided in RS Means Building Construction Cost
Data. Table 12 gives this data; the cost does not include the cost of footing, excavation, backfill,
frame and cover.
Table 12. Cost of Inlets for Different Depths (RS Means, 2006)
Inside Diameter (ft.)
Depth (ft.)
Cost ($/unit)
4
6
8
10
12
14
4
6
8
10
12
14
4
6
8
10
12
14
1200
1575
2050
2600
3150
3700
1275
1800
2300
2894
3488
4082
2025
2675
3525
4435
5345
6255
2.3.7 Curb and Gutter Costs

Curb and gutter costs are provided in RS Means for wood forms, steel forms, machine
formed and precast 6 inches 18 inches gutters for two different widths and straight and radial
patterns for 6 inch high curbs and 6 inch thick gutters (Table 13).
19
Table 13. Curb and Gutter Costs (RS Means, 2006)

Type
Dimension
Cost ($/LF)
24 in. wide
22.5
Wood Forms
30 in. wide
24.5
24 in. wide
straight
10.45
radius
15.3
Steel Forms
30 in. wide
straight
11.85
radius
16.7
24 in. wide
straight
8.25
radius
10
Machine Formed
30 in. wide
straight
9.65
radius
11.4
straight
13.75
Precast 6 in. * 18 in.
radius
21
2.4 Combined Sewage Overflow Controls that can be Applied to Stormwater

There is substantial information concerning the costs of large-scale applications of
combined sewer controls due to massive installations over the past few decades. Some of these
controls may be suitable for the control of separate stormwater. A selection of these is discussed
in the following subsections.
2.4.1 Surface Storage
Surface storage units are offline storage units at or near the surface and are generally
made of concrete. The cost of construction of a surface storage, such as a large culvert, is given
by the following equation (USEPA, 2002):
C = 4.546V 0.826
(2.28)
where
C = construction cost in millions, January 1999 costs, $, and
V = volume of storage system, Mgal
Storage costs depend heavily on land costs. Land costs range from zero if the land is
assumed part of an easement or donated by the developer, to full costs, based on highly
alternative use of land. Storage is used to detain or retain stormwater flows for later release at a
slower rate. Storage can improve or degrade downstream water quality depending on how it is
operated. Empirical cost on surface storage relating cost as a function of area or volume of the
facility can be found in US EPA.
20
2.4.2 Earthen and Concrete Ponds

Costs of the following stormwater storage: earthen ponds, concrete basin covered, and
concrete ponds uncovered, are presented in Tables 14, 15 and 16 respectively. Table 17 presents
the capital costs as a function of volume for other stormwater storage devices. The costs are
primarily associated with earthwork (moving and compaction) and liner if used. The costs
depend on shape of the pond, borrow requirements, soil type, and groundwater problems. These
costs presented by USEPA 1976 assume that the embankment soil is available on-site, there is no
rock excavation and minimal groundwater problems.
The costs (1975 dollars) presented for these reservoirs by EPA were of the dimensions:
18 feet deep, length of twice its breadth, 2.5:1 internal slope, 3:1 external slope, 20 percent
compaction loss, 16 foot top width of levee and a 2 percent bottom slope for to facilitate
cleaning.
21
22
Table 15. Construction Costs for Concrete Reservoir without Cover (US EPA, 1976)
Volume (Mgal)
Cost Component ($)
1
2
4
7.5
15
30
60
120
240
Concrete and Forms
80,370 109,030 166,360 230,390
358,450
513,270
822,940 1,239,770 2,073,370
Steel
110,400 149,600 277,200 313,600
486,400
692,000 1,104,000 1,648,800 2,739,200
Labor
99,140 135,850 208,610 294,060
465,840
686,800 1,129,260 1,771,140 3,055,330
Miscellaneous Items 43,490 59,170 97,830 125,710
196,600
283,810
458,430
698,960
1,180,190
Contingency
50,010 68,050 112,500 144,560
226,090
326,380
527,190
803,800
1,357,210
Total Estimated Cost 383,410 521,700 862,500 1,108,320 1,733,380 2,502,260 4,041,820 6,162,470 10,405,300
Table 14. Construction Costs for Earthen Ponds (US EPA, 1976)
Volume (Mgal)
Cost Component ($)
0.57
1.95
4.9
9.2
14.8
50.85
108.5
187.8
Earthwork
2,540 6,670 14,900 24,700 36,940 93,330 156,320 229,530
Liner
7,730 14,350 32,780 53,720 79,650 233,400 467,150 780,900
Paving
2,180 3,140 4,340
5,540
6,740
11,540 16,340
21,140
Seeding
870
1,750 3,150
4,960
6,540
13,800 20,600
28,000
Fencing
5,650 7,940 10,720 13,500 16,100 26,300 26,300
45,900
Miscellaneous Items
2,850 5,100 9,900 15,360 21,900 56,700 103,000 165,820
Contingency
3,270 5,790 11,350 17,650 25,210 65,150 118,290 190,430
Total Estimated Cost 25,090 44,740 87,140 135,430 193,080 500,220 908,000 1,461,720
7,950
23,450
40,000
4,000
13,600
15,660
120,110
2,650
10,150
20,000
2,000
6,000
6,890
52,840
46,460
356,660
40,500
15,900
46,900
160,000
16,000
30,900
96,690
742,190
84,200
37,100
100,100
320,000
32,000
72,100
343,350
159,000
413,000
1,280,000
128,000
309,000
193,390
394,310
1,384,380 3,026,660
168,390
74,200
200,200
540,000
64,000
144,200
788,630
3,749,330
686,700
318,000
826,000
256,000
256,000
618,000
2,773,080
1,314,000
3,354,400
10,240,000
1,024,000
2,544,400
1,592,350 3,184,680
12,222,490 24,434,560
1,386,540
657,200
1,677,200
5,120,000
512,000
1,277,200
436,250 641,810 1,219,160 1,850,510 3,217,760 5,528,920 10,095,150 18,384,960 34,840,260
15,450
5,150
240
23
Table 17. Estimated Capital Cost of Storage as a Function of Volume (US EPA, 2002)
Cost, C Volume, V,
Type
Equation
V, units Year
Reference
Units ($)
Range
U.S.Army Corps of
Reservoir
C = 160 V0.4
1,000
104-106
Acre-ft 1980
Engineers (1981)
0.81
Covered concrete tank
C = 614 V
1,000
1 - 10
Mgal
1976 Gummerman, et al. (1979)
0.61
Concrete tank
C = 5320 V
1,000
1 - 10
Mgal
Earthen basin
C = 42 V0.61
1,000
1 - 10
Mgal
0.61
Clear well, below ground
C = 495 V
1,000
1 - 10
Mgal
0.61
Clear well, ground level
C = 275 V
1,000
0.01 - 10
Mgal
CSO storage basin
C = 3637 V0.83
1,000
0.15 - 30
Mgal
0.80
CSO deep tunnel
C = 4982 V
1,000
1.8 - 2,000
Mgal
1993 U.S.EPA (1993b)
Cost Component
($)
Concrete and
Forms
Steel
Labor
Precast Concrete
Roofing Material
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
Cost for Cover
Total Estimated
Cost With Cover
Table 16. Construction Costs for Concrete Reservoir with Cover (US EPA, 1976)
Volume (Mgal)
1
2
4
7.5
15
30
60
120
From the costs associated with earthen basin presented in Table 14 (USEPA, 1978), the
total estimated capital cost was plotted against volume of the basin and regression equations
were fitted to this data. Figures 1, 2 and 3 represent these equations for earthen reservoirs for
different volume ranges. Figure 1 represents this data for earthen reservoirs for volumes between
0.57 Mgal to 14.8 Mgal. In Figure 2, the x-axis represents the entire volume range, the regression
equation obtained is a best fit only for the volume range between 14.8 Mgal and 50.85 Mgal.
Figure 3 presents the construction costs of earthen storage reservoirs for volumes ranging from
50.85 Mgal to 187.8 Mgal. Although a single polynomial equation can be used to represent the
entire volume range for these reservoirs, residual analyses show a considerable error in costs for
smaller storage volumes.
200000
C = 32951V0.6336
Cost, $
150000
100000
50000
0
0
10
12
14
16
Volume (Mgal)
Figure 1. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 0.57 Mgal V 14.8 Mgal
24
2000000
C = 30378V
0.7168
Cost, $
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Volume, Mgal
Figure 2. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 14.8 Mgal < V < 50.85 Mgal
1600000
1400000
C = 19914V0.8187
Cost, $
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Volume (Mgal)
Figure 3. Construction Cost of Earthen Storage Reservoirs, 50.85 Mgal V 187.8 Mgal
25
A power function fitted to the data presented in Table 14 (USEPA, 1978) gives the
equations 2.29, 2.30 and 2.31 for construction costs of earthen basins for three different volume
ranges.
For 0.57 V 14.8 Mgal
C = 32951V 0.6336
(2.29)
For 14.8 < V < 50.85 Mgal
C = 30378V 0.7168
(2.30)
For 50.85 V 187.8 Mgal
C = 19914V 0.8187
(2.31)
where
C = construction cost, $, 1975 costs, and
V = volume, Mgal
Table 15 (USEPA, 1978) presents the total estimated cost and the component costs of
concrete basins without cover. Figures 4, 5 and 6 represent the volume of this basin plotted
against the estimated capital cost.
3000000
C = 374621V
2500000
0.559
Cost, $
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Volume (Mgal)
Figure 4. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir (without cover), 1 Mgal V 30 Mgal
26
12000000
10000000
C = 354977V0.598
Cost, $
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Volume (Mgal)
12000000
10000000
C = 243375V0.6821
Cost, $
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Volume (Mgal)
27
A power function fitted to the data presented in Table 15 (USEPA, 1978) gives the
equations as shown by equations 2.32, 2.33 and 2.34 for construction costs of concrete reservoirs
without cover of different volume ranges.
For 1 V 30 Mgal
C = 374621V 0.559
(2.32)
For 30 < V < 60 Mgal
C = 354977V 0.598
(2.33)
For 60 V 240 Mgal
C = 243375V 0.6821
(2.34)
where
C = construction cost, $, 1975 costs, and V = volume, Mgal
Table 16 (USEPA, 1978) presents the costs of concrete basins with cover. Figures 7, 8
and 9 represent the volume of this basin plotted against estimated capital cost.
6000000
5000000
C = 412257V0.7582
Cost, $
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Volume, Mgal
Figure 7. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 1 Mgal V 30 Mgal
28
35
40000000
35000000
C = 387780V
0.8027
30000000
Cost, $
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Volume, Mgal

40000000
35000000
C = 258448V0.8935
30000000
Cost, $
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Volume, Mgal
29
300
A power function using the data presented in Table 16 (USEPA, 1978) data gives the
equations 2.35, 2.36 and 2.37 for construction costs of concrete reservoirs without cover of
different volume ranges.
For 1 V 30 Mgal
C = 412257V 0.7582
(2.35)
For 30 < V < 60 Mgal
C = 387780V 0.8027
(2.36)
For 60 V 240 Mgal
(2.37)
where
C = 258448V 0.8935
C = construction cost, $, 1975 costs, and
V = volume, Mgal
2.4.3 Deep Tunnels

Because of space limitations for near-surface storage in urban areas, deep tunnels can be
bored into bedrock to store combined sewage waters before transport to a treatment plant.
Although they function similarly to surface storage units, little additional treatment is suitable in
these devices, beyond a component of a storage-treatment system in conjunction with a
conventional wastewater treatment system, or for hydrograph modifications. Sedimentation is
not desirable due to the difficulty and high cost of cleaning these units. They are therefore
usually constructed with self-cleaning flushing devices, or other methods to remove any settled
debris. Since these are associated with combined sewer systems, the flushed material is usually
treated at the wastewater treatment plant after the runoff event has ended, and not discharged
untreated. If used in a separate stormwater system, the flushed material would also have to be
flushed to a treatment facility, and not discharged to the receiving water.
US EPA (2002) relates the construction cost to volume of storage as:
(2.38)
where
C = 6.22V 0.795
C = construction cost, millions, January 1999 costs, $, and

V = volume of storage system, Mgal
Figure 10 shows a comparison of the construction costs of deep tunnel storage with
surface storage.
30
10000
0.795
C = 6.228 V
Construction cost (in Million $)
1000
C = 4.546 V
100
0.826
10
0.1
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Volume (Mgal)
CSO Deep Tunnels
CSO Storage Basin
Figure 10. Comparison of Construction Costs of Deep Tunnel and Surface Storage
2.4.4 Swirl Concentrators, Screens, Sedimentation Basins and Disinfection
Swirl concentrators use centrifugal force and gravitational settling to remove heavier
sediments and floatable material from combined sewer overflows. Similar devices have been
used for the treatment of separate stormwater, although the settling and size characteristics of the
pollutants of these two wastewaters can be vastly different. They are usually used in conjunction
with storage facilities to treat relatively uniform flows. The best source of cost data for swirl
concentrators, screens, sedimentation basins, and disinfection facilities is the US EPA (1976)
which relates cost as a function of size or design flow.
For 3 Q 300 MGD,
C = 0.22Q 0.611
(2.39)
Coarse screens can also be used to remove large solids and floatables from wastewater
discharges:
For 0.8 Q 200 MGD,
C = 0.09Q 0.843
(2.40)
Sedimentation basins allow physical settling prior to discharge. They can also have
baffles to eliminate short circuiting of flows:
For 1 Q 500 MGD,
C = 0.218Q 0.668
(2.41)
Disinfection is used to kill pathogenic bacteria prior to CSO discharges:
For 1 Q 200 MGD,
C = 0.161Q 0.464
(2.42)
31
where
C = construction cost, millions, January 1999 cost, $, and
Q = design flow rate, MGD
These equations are plotted on Figure 11.
Construction Cost (in Million $)
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Design flow rate (MGD)

swirl concentrator
screens
sedimentation basins
disinfection
Figure 11. Construction Costs of Swirl Concentrators, Screens, Sedimentation

Basins and Disinfection
2.5 Gross Solids Controls

The term gross solids include litter, vegetation, and other particles of relatively large
size such as, manufactured items made from paper, plastic, cardboard, metal, glass, etc., that can
be retained by a 5 mm mesh screen (Caltrans, 2003). The following costs are for initial purchase
and installation only (operation and maintenance costs not included) of three types of gross
solids removal devices (GSRD) designed for a pilot study done by CALTRANS (Phase I and
Phase II), to evaluate their performance and implement them on highway drainage systems.
Phase III V consists of monitoring several variants of the existing GSRD designs, but the
associated costs are unavailable.
The three design concepts developed in the Phase I pilot scale study were: Linear Radial,
Inclined Screen and Baffle Box. There were two variants of the Linear Radial designs and three
variants of the Inclined Screen. The Linear Radial - Configuration #1 uses a modular well casing
with louvers to serve as a screen. The Linear Radial Configuration #2 utilizes rigid mesh
screen housing with nylon mesh bags that capture gross solids. The inclined screen
configuration #1 utilizes parabolic wedge-wire screens to separate gross solids. The Inclined
Screen Configuration #2 utilizes parabolic bars to screen out gross solids. The Baffle Box
applies a two-chamber concept: the first chamber utilizes an underflow weir to trap floatable
32
gross solids, while the second chamber uses a bar rack to capture solids that get past the
underflow weir. The Phase II pilot project developed a modification of the Linear Radial
Configuration #1 by using a parabolic wedge wire screen to screen out gross solids. The device
was designed so that it could be cleaned using front-end loader equipment.
Installation costs for these GSRDs are shown in the Table 18. They vary from site to site
and also between GSRD types.
Table 18. GSRD Installation Costs (CALTRANS, 2003)
Drainage
Total Costa
Costb ($)
Design
Area (ac.)
($)
Linear Radial #1
3.7
66,200
48,300
Linear Radial #2 (Site 1)
6.2
172,009
155,935
Linear Radial #2 (Site 2)
0.9
110,462
94,388
Inclined Screen #1
2.5
100,800
82,800
Inclined Screen #2 (Site 1)
3.4
150,425
134,351
Inclined Screen #2 (Site 2)
2.1
151,337
135,263
Baffle Box (Site 1)
3.0
129,422
113,348
Baffle Box (Site 2)
2.3
135,629
119,555
Inclined Screen #3
3.3
370,059
345,000
Note: a - Cost includes monitoring equipment, b - Cost not including monitoring
equipment
Tables 19 and 20 give a brief description of some floatable and oil removal and solid
removal stormwater controls, targeted pollutants for removal, and associated unit costs. This
information was collected by the Water Resources Committee, American Public Works
Association (APWA), Southern California Chapter, for the regional USEPA stormwater National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. The survey identified 50 stormwater
controls that could be implemented for existing developed areas. To evaluate the costs, agencies
throughout the nation were contacted to identify stormwater controls that have been implemented
and to provide information concerning the evaluation process of the controls, implementation
processes, siting issues, available pollutant removal effectiveness data, and construction and
operation costs and issues.
33
Sediment, oil, and

grease
Intercept and trap

sediment and
grease from runoff
Installed on storm
drain inlets
Sediment/Grease
Trap
34
Sediments and
hydrocarbons
Remove pollutants
Site dependent. For

heavy traffic area or
areas with high
potential for oil spill
Oil and Grit

Separators
Install sediment
and grease traps
Install grit and

oil separators on
storm drains
Install grit and

oil separators
Parking lot structure

and receiving water
Oil, grease, and

anti-freeze from
vehicles and foods
and food wrappers
Collect debris
before it can enter
storm drain
Construction
Requirements
Targeted Pollutants
Clarifiers and Oil and

Water Separators on
Parking Structures
Storm Protection
Benefit
Area of
Benefit
Type of
Practice
Table 19. Cost of Floatable and Oil Removal Devices (APWA, 1992)
3000
2000
3000
Capital
Cost
($/ac)
2000
(Assumes 1 unit per 5
acres. Requires
continuous maintenance
to maintain effectiveness)
2000
2000
(Assumes 1 unit per 5
acres. Requires
continuous maintenance
to maintain effectiveness)
O&M Cost
($/acre/yr)
Treats stormwater flows

prior to discharge.
Site and need

dependent
Site and need

dependent
Site and need

dependent
Primary Clarifiers
Primary Clarifiers
and Filters
Primary Clarifiers
and Lime
Precipitation
prior to discharge.

prior to discharge.

prior to discharge.
Site and need

dependent
Swirl Concentrators
and Chlorination
/Dechlorination
Restrict passage of
objects which may
obstruct pump station
suction bays.
Storm Protection
Benefit
Site dependent
Area of
Benefit
Bar Screens
Type of
Practice
Install swirl
concentrators.
Install primary
classifiers
Construct
sedimentation basins
and filters
Install primary
classifiers and lime
precipitation
facilities.
Floatables, settleable
solids, suspended
solids, and coliform
bacteria.
solids, suspended
bacteria.
Suspended solids,
nutrients and
coliform bacteria
solids, suspended
bacteria.
35
Install bar screens

before pump station
suction bays.
Construction
Requirements
Large debris
Targeted Pollutants
Table 20. Costs of Solids Removal Practices (APWA, 1992)
1,150,000
350,000
50,000
12,000
4,000
Capital Cost
($/Mgal)
70,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
O&M Cost
($/Mgal/year)
2.6 Outfall Stormwater Controls

Outfall stormwater controls are located at outfalls from developed areas and treat all
flows coming from the area before discharge to the receiving water. They may have bypasses or
overflows so excessive flows can be routed around the devices without damage, but with
resulting reduced removal rates.
2.6.1 Wet Detention Ponds and Wetlands
Wet detention ponds are one of the most effective methods of removing pollutant
loadings from stormwater. If designed properly and in conjunction with a hydrologic basin
analysis, they are also suitable for attenuating peak runoff flows. When properly sized and
maintained, they can achieve high rates of removal of sediment and particulate-bound pollutants.
Cost information on wet detention ponds is available from Young, et al. (1996) who
presents cost as a function of storage volume:
C = 61,000V 0.75
(2.43)
The cost of dry detention ponds is also a function of volume, according to Young, et al.
(1996), and is represented as:
C = 55,000V 0.69
(2.44)
where
C = construction cost, $, and
V = volume of pond, Mgal
The land cost is not included in these equations.
Wiegand, et al. (1985) also presented equations for the construction costs of wet ponds as,
C = 33.99Vs 0.644 , Vs > 100,000 cf
(2.45)
Wiegand, et al. (1985) presents construction costs for dry ponds as,
C = 10.71Vs 0.694 , Vs > 10,000 cf
(2.46)
where
C = construction cost, $, and
Vs = storage volume, cf
The storage volume for wet ponds is defined here as the volume of the pond to the top of
the emergency spillway, plus the permanent pool volume. However, for flow analyses, the
storage volume would not include the permanent pool volume. For dry ponds, the storage
volume is the total volume below the emergency spillway. The components for these
construction costs are earth-work (cut and fill, clear and grub), inlet/outlet works, riprap,
aggregate, plus sediment and erosion control.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (1996) developed an equation for
determining the cost of a pond based on volume, in 1985 dollars. The land costs are also not
included in this formula:
(2.47)
C = 6.1
0.02832
0.75
where
C = construction cost in 1985 $, and
V = volume of storage of the pond up to the crest of the emergency spillway, including
the permanent pool, m3
36
Wet detention ponds also provide waterfowl and wildlife habitat, provisions for noncontact recreational opportunities, landscape and aesthetic amenities. They also provide
streambank erosion control benefits, if properly designed. In Figure 12, retention ponds are
wet-detention ponds, while detention ponds are dry-detention ponds. Dry ponds, which empty
between most rains, are not as effective in removing pollutants as wet ponds due to lack of scour
protection. Basic wetland costs would be similar to wet-detention pond costs, but with
substantial additional costs associated with acquiring and planting the wetland plants.
1.00E+08
0.826
C=4546000V
Construction cost (1/99 $)
1.00E+07
1.00E+06
0.75
C=61000V
1.00E+05
0.69
C=55000V
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Volume (Mgal)
detention pond
retention pond
CSO storage
Figure 12. Comparison of Construction Costs of Detention, Retention and CSO Storage
Table 21 presents a summary of the reported costs of wet detention ponds. The estimated
capital cost of a 0.25 acre wet detention pond is shown in Table 22, excluding land costs. This
includes mobilization and demobilization costs of heavy equipment, site preparation, site
development and contingencies. Tables 23, 24, 25 show the estimated capital costs of 1, 3 and 5
acre wet detention ponds, respectively.
37
--
Capital Cost: 107.4V0.51

V = pond volume (cf)
a) $311/acre served
b) $1038/acre served
c) $1470/acre served
d) 2076/acre served
e) $6228/acre served
Pond Capacity:
1000 to 1.0 Million cf
Pond Size:
a) 2700 gallons/acre
b) 13600 gallons/acre
c) 27200 gallons/acre
d) 40700 gallons/acre
e) 136000 gallons/acre
c) 10 acres
d) 11.5 acres
Pond Size:
a) 6 acres
b) 8.5 acres
a) $1,231,163/pond
b) $1,281,7572,151,978/pond
c)$7207230/pond
d) $1204538/pond
$1870/pond
Construction Cost:
85 V0.483
V = basin volume (cf)
Pond with a 20-Acre

Drainage Area
a) $5,521/pond
b) $2,0963,064/pond
c) $2,290/pond
d) $10,288/pond
a) $61/acre served
b) $52/acre served
c) $52/acre served
d) $52/acre served
e) $43/acre served
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
Description
Capital Cost
38
All drainage area 50 percent

impervious. Ponds a), b), c)
include discharge pump and
canal. Design d) percolates
discharge.
Fresno,
California
General
Washington,
D.C., area
Includes planning, design,

administration and
contingencies
Valid for basins serving

50 acres
Montgomery
County,
Maryland
Location
Excludes planning, design,

administration and
contingencies
Comments
Midwest Research Institute,

March 1982
SEWRPC Technical Report

No. 18, July 1977
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments,
March 1983
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments,
March 1983
Reference
Table 21. Summary of Reported Costs (January, 1989 $) of Wet Detention Ponds (SEWRPC, 1991)
Operation and
maintenance
cost is 5 percent of
capital cost
--
Capital Cost:
108.36V0.51
V=pond volume (cf)
Capital Cost:
6.1V0.75
V=pond volume (cf)
1000 to 1 Million cubic feet

Pond Serving a Drainage
Area of 20 to 1000 acres
Pond Volumes
V < 100000 cubic feet
$722/pond
$53,068/pond
0.8-acre Pond Serving a

160-acre Drainage Area
$2,020/pond
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
$81,243/pond
Capital Cost
Pond Capacity of 6.5 acrefeet
Description
39
Excludes engineering,
administration and
contingencies.
Washington,
D.C., area
Washington,
D.C., area
Salt Lake
County,
Utah
Includes construction,
materials, land, soil testing,
and other indirect costs.
Operation and maintenance
cost includes labor,
equipment and disposal
costs.
--
Tri-County
Michigan
Location
--
Comments
Table 21 Continued.
T.R.Schueler, July 1987
USEPA, Dec 1983

March 1982

March 1982
Reference
c) 5 acre-foot
d) 10 acre-foot
e) 20 acre-foot
a) $19,504-45 580/pond
b) $62,540-60,377/pond
c) $94,022/pond
d) $146,492/pond
e) $227,900/pond
$51,900/pond
Series of nine
interconnected ponds
Pond volume:
a) 1 acre-foot
b) 3 acre-foot
Capital Cost:
34V0.64
V=pond volume (cf)
Capital Cost
Pond volumes
V 100,000 cf
Description
--
--
--
40
Capital cost excludes land

acquisition, engineering,
administration and contingencies
25 percent of capital cost includes

grading, drainage and paving
Capital cost excludes engineering,

administration, land acquisition
and contingencies
Comments
Table 21 Continued.
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost
Southeastern
Wisconsin
Southern
California
Washington, D.C.,
area
Location
SEWRPC Community
Assistance Planning
Report No. 173,
March 1989
Robert Pitt, April

1987
T.R.Schueler
July 1987
Reference
--
Square yard
Square yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Pond
Acre
--
Site development
Salvaged topsoil,
Seed and mulch
Sod
Riprap
Pond inlet
Pond outlet
Landscape, fence, etc
Subtotal
Pond
Acre
Acre
Cubic yard
Cubic yard
Site preparation
Clearing
Grubbing
General Excavation
Place and Compact Fill
Contingencies, Engineering,
Legal Fees, and
Administration
Total
Pond
MobilizationDemobilization-Heavy
--
1,089
121
16
1
1
0.25
--
0.50
0.13
908
608
41
25 percent
--
0.4
1.2
16.4
2,620
2,640
1,000
--
2200
3800
2.1
0.6
390
25 percent
--
1
2.4
29.6
5,740
6,760
2,000
--
3,800
5200
3.7
1.1
1,000
25 percent
--
1.6
3.6
42.8
8,860
10,880
3,000
--
5,400
6600
5.3
1.6
1,610
2,652
13,261
436
145
262
2,620
2,640
250
10,609
1,100
494
1,907
365
390
5,610
28,069
1,089
290
474
5,740
6,760
500
22,459
1,900
676
3,360
669
1,000
8,577
42,883
1,742
436
685
8,860
10,880
750
34,306
2,700
858
4,812
973
1,610
Table 22. Estimated Capital Cost of a 0.25-acre Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Pond
--
Square yard
Square yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Pond
Acre
--
Site development
Salvaged topsoil,
Seed and mulch
Sod
Riprap
Pond inlet
Pond outlet
Subtotal
Contingencies, engineering,
legal fees, and
administration
Total
Acre
Acre
Cubic yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Mobilizationdemobilization-heavy
Site preparation
Clearing
Grubbing
General excavation
Place and compact fill
1.00
2.40
29.60
5,740
6,760
2,000
--
3,800
5,175
3.7
1.1
1,000
1.60
3.60
42.80
8,860
10,880
3,000
--
5,400
8,901
5.3
1.6
1,610
42
1 25 percent 25 percent 25 percent

-----
0.40
1.20
16.40
2,620
2,640
1,000
--
2,200
3,726
2.1
0.6
2
0.5
5,771
3,867
4,356
424
48
1
1
1
--
390
7,520
37,599
1,742
581
787
2,620
2,640
250
30,079
4,400
1,863
11,699
2,320
390
14,377
71,883
4,356
1,162
1,421
5,740
6,760
2,000
57,506
7,600
2,588
20,613
4,254
1,000
21,232
106,161
6,970
1,742
2,054
8,860
10,880
3,000
84,929
10,800
3,300
29,526
6,187
1,610
Table 23. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1-acre Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Pond
--
Square yard
Square yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Pond
Acre
--
Site development
Salvaged topsoil,
Seed and mulch
Sod
Riprap
Pond inlet
Pond outlet
Subtotal
Contingencies, engineering,
legal fees, and
administration
Total
Acre
Acre
Cubic yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Site preparation
Clearing
Grubbing
General excavation
Component
--
13,068
1,452
145
1
1
3
--
6
1.5
21,260
14,244
1.00
2.40
29.60
5,740
6,760
2,000
--
3,800
5,200
3.70
1.10
1,000
43
25 percent 25 percent
---
0.40
1.20
16.40
2,620
2,640
1,000
--
2,200
3,800
2.10
0.60
390
25 percent
--
1.60
3.60
42.80
8,860
10,880
3,000
--
5,400
8,901
5.30
1.60
1,610
22,522
112,611
5,227
1,742
2,378
2,620
2,640
3,000
90,089
13,200
5,700
44,646
8,546
390
41,319
206,594
13,068
3,485
4,292
5,740
6,760
6,000
165,275
22,800
7,800
78,662
15,668
1,000
60,115
300,575
20,909
5,227
6,206
8,860
10,880
9,000
240,460
32,400
9,900
112,678
22,790
1,610
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
--
Square yard
Square yard
Cubic yard
Pond
Pond
Acre
--
Site development
Salvaged topsoil,
Seed and mulch
Sod
Riprap
Pond inlet
Pond outlet
Subtotal
Pond
Acre
Acre
Cubic yard
Cubic yard
Site preparation
Clearing
Grubbing
General excavation
Contingencies, Engineering,
Legal fees, and
Administration
Total
Pond
Component
--
21,780
2,420
242
1
1
5
--
10
2.5
37,013
24,799
1.00
2.40
29.60
5,740
6,760
2,000
--
3,800
5,200
3.70
1.10
1,000
44
25 percent 25 percent
---
0.40
1.20
16.48
2,620
2,640
1,000
--
2,200
3,800
2.10
0.60
390
25 percent
--
1.60
3.60
42.80
8,860
10,880
3,000
--
5400
6600
5.30
1.60
1,610
37,585
187,926
8,712
2,904
3,969
2,620
2,640
5,000
150,341
22,000
9,500
77,727
14,879
390
68,370
341,848
21,780
5,808
7,163
5,740
6,760
10,000
273,478
38,000
13,000
136,948
27,279
1,000
99,161
495,803
34,848
8,712
10,358
8,860
10,880
15,000
396,642
54,000
16,500
196,196
39,678
1,610
Unit cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
The total capital costs (1989 dollars) and the total annual operation and maintenance
costs are summarized in Table 26.
Table 26. Summary of Capital Costs for Wet Detention Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Annual
Water
Water
Capital Cost ($)
Surface
Volume
Operation and
(cf.)
Area (ac.)
Low
Moderate
High Maintenance ($)
0.25
23,290.2 13,261
28,069
42,883
1,313
1.0
148,026.2 37,599
71,883
106,161
2,417
3.0
545,319.0 112,611 206,594 300,575
5,542
5.0
949,383.5 187,926 341,848 495,803
8,671
Figure 13 is a graphical representation of this data showing the total capital and total annual
operation and maintenance cost (1989 dollars) for different pond water storage volumes in cubic
feet.
1,000,000
100,000
Cost, $
High Cost
Medium Cost
Low Cost
10,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost

1,000
10,000.0
100,000.0
1,000,000.0
Pond Water Storage Volume, CF
Figure 13. Cost of Wet Detention Pond for Different Water Storage Volumes
Linear-regression equations fitted to the data in Table 26 (SEWRPC, 1991) results in the
total capital cost and the total annual operation and maintenance cost of wet detention ponds for
different water storage volumes:
For low cost:
C = 0.1884V + 9376.1
(2.48)
For moderate cost:
C = 0.3384V + 21139
(2.49)
45
For high cost:

C = 0.3384V + 32897
(2.50)
For total operation and maintenance cost:
C = 0.0079V + 1192.2
(2.51)
where
C = Cost, $ and
V = Pond water storage volume, cf.
These equations were then included in the WinSLAMM model to enable it to automatically
estimate the cost of wet detention ponds. This was achieved by adjusting the 1989 Wisconsin
costs for wet detention ponds to 2005 costs using ENR construction cost indices. The average
cost index of Chicago and Detroit was considered to adjust the Wisconsin (Milwaukee region)
costs to the national average and also to adjust it for other cities listed by the ENR. Figure 14
shows the control practice cost selection screen for detention ponds in WinSLAMM.
Figure 14. Detention Pond Cost Selection and Input Screen in WinSLAMM
CALTRANS retrofitted extended detention ponds at five locations (different watershed
areas and pond design parameters) into existing highway locations and related infrastructure. All
sites were located on the highway right-of-way and collected runoff from the highway. The
summary of the contributing watersheds and the design characteristics of the detention ponds are
given in Tables 27 and 28 and their construction costs in Table 29.
46
Table 27. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics for CALTRANS

Detention Ponds Retrofitted Locations (CALTRANS, 2001)
Watershed Area
Impervious Cover
Site Location
Land Use
(hectare, acre)
(%)
I-5/I-605
Highway
2.75 (6.8)
54
I-605/SR-91
Highway
0.40 (0.8)
100
I-5/SR-56
Highway
2.14 (5.3)
69
I-15/SR-78
Highway
5.42 (13.4)
21
I-5/Manchester
Highway
1.94 (4.8)
56
47
48
Table 28. Design Characteristics of CALTRANS Extended Detention Ponds (CALTRANS, 2001)
Water Quality Water
Max. Water
Length
Design Storm
Pond
Depth
Design Storm Quality
Site Location
Type
to Width
Water Depth in
Capacity of Material
Depth
Volume
ratio
pond
(m.)
Pond (m.)
(cm., in.)
(m3)
I-5/I-605
Off-line
2.54 (1)
365
0.6
1.36
Concrete
4.5:1
I-605/SR-91
On-line
2.54 (1)
70
0.6
1.17
Earthen
9:1
I-5/SR-56
On-line
3.3 (1.3)
391
0.5
1.1
Earthen
6:1
I-15/SR-78
On-line
4.83 (1.89)
1123
1.15
2.5
Earthen
10:1
I-5/Manchester Off-line
3.3 91.3)
253
0.83
1.22
Earthen
3:1
Table 29. Construction Costs of Wet Detention Ponds (CALTRANS, 2001)

Actual Cost
Cost/WQV
Site Location
Actual Cost ($)
w/o monitoring ($)
($/cf)
I-5/I-605
169,732
127,202
9.88
I-605/SR-91
111,871
77,389
31.48
I-5/SR-56
161,853
143,555
10.41
I-15/SR-78
847,712
819,852
20.68
I-5/Manchester
370,408
329,833
36.95
Note: Water Quality Volume (WQV) = Water Quality Storm Depth *
Tributary Area * Rvave
When the Water Quality Storm Depth already accounts for the Weighted Runoff Coefficient
(Rv), the equation becomes WQV = (factored Water Quality Storm Depth) * Tributary Area.
where
Rvavg = weighted runoff coefficient calculated using the following equation
(2.52)
Rv =
A Rv
A
i
where
Ai = fraction of drainage area with runoff coefficient Rvi, and
Rvi = runoff vulume coefficient (runoff depth/rainfall depth) in area Ai
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/treatment/Handouts.doc)
The distribution of the component capital costs is largely a function of the pond area. The
operation and maintenance costs of wet detention ponds range from $1300 for a 0.25 acre pond
to nearly $8700 for a 5 acre pond. Routine and periodic maintenance of wet detention ponds
include lawn and other landscape care, pond inspection, debris and litter removal, erosion control
and nuisance control, inlet and outlet repairs and sediment removal. Table 30 presents the
average annual operation and maintenance costs of wet detention ponds and Table 31 presents
the costs involved for chemical treatment using alum or ferric chloride injection.
49
50
Table 30. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs of Wet Detention Ponds (SEWRPC, 1991)
Pond Surface (ac.)
Component
Unit Cost
Comment
0.25
1
3
5
Maintenance area equals
area cleared minus
Lawn Mowing
0.85/1000 square feet
$74
$296
$889 $1,481
pond area. Mowed 8
times per year
$9/1000 square
General Lawn Care
$98
$392 $1,176 $1,960 area cleared minus
feet/year
pond area
Pond Inlet
3 percent of capital
$172
$172
$172
$172
-Maintenance
cost in inlet
Pond Outlet
$338
$338
$338
$338
-Maintenance
cost in outlet
Pond Sediment
1 percent of capital cost $281
$719 $2,067 $3,421
-Removal
Debris and Litter
$100/yr
$100
$100
$100
$100
-Removal
Pond Nuisance Control
-$50
$200
$600 $1,000
-Program Administration
$50/pond/yr,
Ponds inspected six
$200
$200
$200
$200
and Inspection
plus $25/inspection
times per year
Total Annual Operation
-$1,313 $2,417 $5,542 $8,671
-and Maintenance
51
Table 31. Chemical Treatment, Alum or Ferric Chloride Injection (Peluso et al., 2002)
Installation or
Operation, Inspection
Maintenance Issues
Construction Cost
and Maintenance Costs
and Concerns
Maintenance is high as
chemicals are continuously
For an alum treatment facility, with
Annual operation and
an average cost of $245,000 per
added and the waste precipitate
maintenance cost is $100
is removed for disposal.
Chemical Treatment
system serving a drainage area of
per acre of drainage
less than 310 acres, the average
Accumulated floc must be
area served.
pumped out of sump area on a
initial cost is $790 per acre treated
periodic basis and disposed.
2.6.2 Infiltration Ponds

Infiltration ponds are similar to wet detention ponds. They perform similar to infiltration
trenches in removing waterborne pollutants by capturing surface runoff and filtering it through
the soil. An infiltration pond usually does not have an outlet other than an emergency spillway to
pass excess runoff. Table 32 presents a summary of construction costs of infiltration ponds.
Tables 33 and 34 present selected unit costs, the calculated component costs, and total capital
costs for a 0.25 and 1.0 acre infiltration ponds, both 3 feet deep. The cost of underground
drainage systems is not included because such systems are required only when the soil has
marginal permeability. In such cases, it is preferable to use a wet pond.
Periodic maintenance includes annual inspections and periodic inspections after large
storms, mowing pond side slopes and bottom areas, debris and liter removal, erosion control,
odor control, and management of mosquitoes (Table 35). Deep tilling may be needed every 5
years to break up clogged layers. Tilling is then followed by grading, leveling and revegetating
the surface.
52
3 to 5 percent of pond construction cost,

2-4 percent of pond capital cost
3-5 percent of pond construction cost,
$0.15/cubic foot,
or 13 percent of capital cost
Construction Cost = 73.52 V0.51

V = pond volume (cubic feet)

Construction Cost = 1.18 V

53
5 to 20 percent of pond cost construction,


City of Oconomowoc
Wisconsin
Washington D.C
Metropolitan area
Washington D.C
Metropolitan area
Washington D.C
Metropolitan area
Reference
Donohue & Associates,

Inc, April 1989
T.R.Schueler, et al., April

1987
T.R.Schueler, et al., April

1985
Wiegand, et al.,
June 1986
Table 32. Equations for Estimating Costs of Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Annual Operation
Capital Cost ($)
Location
and Maintenance Cost ($)
54
Table 33. Estimated Capital Cost of a 0.25-acre Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Mobilization390
1,000
1,610
390
1,000
1,610
Demobilization-heavy
Pond
1
Site preparation
0.5
2,200
3,800
5,400
1,100
1,900
2,700
Clearing
Acre
Grubbing
Acre
0.13
3,800
5,200
6,600
494
676
878
834
2.10
3.70
5.30
1,751
3,086
4,420
General Excavation
Cubic yard
Place and Compact Fill
Cubic yard
559
0.60
1.10
1.60
335
615
894
1076
0.20
0.35
0.50
215
377
538
Level and Till
Square yard
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
1,210
0.40
1.00
1.60
484
1,210
1,936
Square yard
Sod
Square yard
1,210
1.20
2.40
3.60
1,452
2,904
4,356
Riprap
Cubic yard
10
16.40
29.60
42.80
164
296
428
1
2,620
5,740
8,860
2,620
5,740
8,860
Pond Inlet
Each
0.5
1,000
2,000
3,000
500
1,000
1,500
Landscape, Fence, etc
Acre
Subtotal
-----9,505
18,804 28,100
Contingencies
Pond
2,376
4,701
7,025
Total
-----11,881
23,505 35,125
55
Table 34. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1.0-acre Infiltration Pond (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low Moderate
High
MobilizationDemobilization-heavy Pond
1
390
1,000
1,610
390
1,000
1,610
Site preparation
2.00
2,200
3,800
5,400 4,400
7,600
10,800
Clearing
Acre
0.50
3,800
Grubbing
Acre
5,200
6,600 1,900
2,600
3,300
4,240
2.10
3.70
5.30 8,904
15,688
22,472
General Excavation
Cubic yard
0.60
Place and Compact Fill Cubic yard
2,841
1.10
1.60 1,705
3,125
4,546
0.20
0.35
0.50
917
1,600
2,285
Level and Till
Square yard
4,570
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
4,840
0.40
1.00
1.60 1,936
4,840
7,744
Square yard
Sod
Square yard
4,840
1.20
3.60 5,808
11,616
17,424
2.40
Riprap
Cubic yard
10
16.40
29.60
42.80
164
296
428
1
2,620
8,860 2,620
5,740
8,860
Pond Inlet
Each
5,740
2.0
1,000
2,000
3,000 2,000
4,000
6,000
Landscape, Fence, etc Acre
Subtotal
-----30,741
58,105
85,469
Contingencies
Pond
7,685
14,526
21,367
Total
-----38,426
71,631
106,836
$29
$150
$917
$0.3/square yard
$50/pond/yr,
plus $25/inspection
--
56
$100
$100/yr
$84
$421.1/pond
bottom
acre/year
Pond Sediment
Removal
Debris and Litter

Removal
Grass Reseeding with
Mulch and Fertilizer
Program Administration
and Inspection
Total Annual Operation
and Maintenance
$38
$172
$196
$148
$0.35/square yard
$9/1000 square
feet/year
cost in inlet
0.85/1000 square
feet
Unit Cost
Soil Leveling and

Tilling
Pond Inlet
Maintenance
General Lawn Care
Lawn Mowing
Component
$2,468
$150
$131
$100
$379
$160
$172
$784
$592
Pond Top Surface

Area (ac.)
0.25
1
--
Ponds inspected four

times per year
--
Area revegetated equals pond

bottom area at 10-yr intervals
--
Pond bottom area leveled and

tilled at 10-yr intervals
following sediment removal
--
Maintenance area equals two

times pond area. Mow 8 times
per year
Maintenance area equals two
times pond area
Comment
Table 35. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs of Infiltration Ponds (SEWRPC, 1991)
57
2.7 Public Works Practices
2.7.1 Street Cleaning
Most street cleaning programs are intended to improve aesthetics and prevent clogging of
inlets and storm drainage systems. Street cleaning is a relatively labor-intensive operation that
uses expensive equipment that has high maintenance costs and also requires a large investment
for disposal facilities, and maintenance facilities. The reported costs of street cleaners are
presented in Table 36. The unit costs for street cleaning programs (including capital, operation,
and maintenance costs) are summarized in Table 37.
Table 36. Reported Costs of Street Cleaners (SEWRPC, 1991)
Street Cleaner
Type
Manufacturer
and Model
Elgin Pelican
Mechanical
Street
Sweeper
Vacuum
Street Cleaner
Regenerative
Air Street
Cleaner
Capital Cost
($)
Reference
65,000-75,000
Bruce Municipal Equipment, Inc

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
EMC Vangaurd 4000

Single broom
89,225
Double broom
93,550
Elgin Whirlwind
120,000

VAC/ALL Model E-10

Single broom
61,467
Double broom
73,467
Bark River Culvert & Equipment

Company, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Elgin Crosswind
110,000

FMC Vangaurd 3000SP

Single broom
73,165
Double broom
77,700

Company, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
TYMCO Model
600
Illinois Truck Equipment

Appleton, Wisconsin
87,000
57

Company, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
21.8-46.6
17.9
NA
NA
25
0.17-0.93
NA
$/hour of
36
sweeping operation
Note: NA Not Available
$/curb-mile swept
$/ pound of
solids collected
$/cubic yard
of solids collected
Cost Factor
58
NA
12.9-19.4
NA
0.12-0.34
NA
14.3-18
NA
NA
29.7
27.2
40
0.05-0.32
NA
25
13.4
NA
Table 37. Reported Unit Costs for Street Cleaning Programs (SEWRPC, 1991)
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Studies
Winston-Salem,
San Francisco
San Jose,
City of
Champaign,
Milwaukee,
Forsyth County,
Bay area,
California
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
Illinois
North Carolina
California
(Pitt, 1979)
(1988)
33.3
21.2
26.7
0.32
Mean of
all studies
2.7.2 Catchbasin Cleaning

A catchbasin is a stormwater runoff inlet equipped with a small sedimentation basin or
grit chamber with a capacity ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 cubic yards. Stormwater enters the
catchbasin through the surface inlet and drops to the bottom where the largest and heaviest of the
sediment and other pollutants carried by runoff are deposited and accumulated. The water then
enters the subsurface conveyance system.
Catchbasins must be periodically cleaned to remove sediment and debris accumulated in
the grit chamber. The catchbasins are cleaned manually using shovels, a clamshell bucket,
vacuum educators, or vacuum attachments to street cleaners. Cleaning frequency is based on
available manpower and equipment, and by the level needed to prevent clogging of stormwater
sewers. Cleaning frequencies typically range from twice a year to every several years. Materials
removed from catchbasins are normally deposited in landfills. Catchbasins can be difficult to
clean in areas having traffic and parking congestion and cleaning is difficult if snow or ice is
present.
Capital costs for material and labor to install catchbasins generally range from $200 to
$4000 per catchbasin. In Castro Valley Creek, California, catchbasins were cleaned once a year
and approximately 60 pounds were removed each time. The cost (1982 dollars) of cleaning
catchbasins at three different locations is shown in Table 38.
Table 38. CALTRANS Catchbasin Cleaning Costs
(USEPA, 1999)
Cost of cleaning
Location
($ per catchbasin)
Castro Valley, California
7.7
Salt Lake County, Utah
10.3
Weston-Salem, North Carolina
6.3
The resulting cleaning cost at Castro Valley, California was about $0.13 per pound of
solids removed. In the city of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, where the catchbasins were cleaned using
attachments to a vacuum street cleaner, catchment cleaning costs were about $0.09 per pound of
solids removed. Generally, about $8 was estimated for each catchbasin cleaning in communities
that use a vacuum attachment to a vacuum street cleaner, compared to $15 for manual cleaning.
2.8 Critical Source Area Controls

Critical source area controls are used at locations where unusually high concentrations of
stormwater pollutants originate. It is usually more effective to reduce the concentrations and
resultant pollutant discharges at these locations than to allow the water to mix with other
stormwaters, possibly requiring the treatment of much larger flows. These areas are usually
located in commercial and industrial areas and include loading docks, storage areas, vehicle
maintenance areas, public works yards, scrap yards, etc.
59
2.8.1 Hydrodynamic Separators

Hydrodynamic separators are flow-through structures with a settling or separation unit to
remove gross pollutants, grit, and bed load sediments, and possibly other pollutants. No
additional outside energy is required for operation. Separation usually depends on gravitational
settling, possibly assisted by lamella plates or swirl action, and may also include coarse screens.
These devices are available in a wide range of sizes and can be used in conjunction with other
controls in the watershed to produce treatment trains. Four commonly used commercial
hydrodynamic separators are the Continuous Deflector SeparatorTM (CDS), the Downstream
DefenderTM, the StormceptorTM, and the VortechsTM units, described in the following
paragraphs. Table 39 shows the costs per unit and the O&M costs of these hydrodynamic
separators.
2.8.1.1 Continuous Deflective SeparatorTM (CDS)
The CDS hydrodynamic separator is suitable for floatables and gross pollutant removal.
The system utilizes a rotational action of the water to enhance gravitational separation of solids,
plus a screen. Separated debris is captured by a litter sump located in the center of the unit. Flow
rate capacities of CDS units vary from 3 to 300 cfs depending on the application and size of the
unit. Precast modules are available for flows up to 62 cfs, while higher flows require cast-inplace construction. Polypropylene or copolymer sorbents can be added to the CDS unit
separation chamber to assist in the capture of free floating oils.
2.8.1.2 Downstream DefenderTM
The Downstream DefenderTM (Hydro International, Ltd.) is also used to capture
floatables and gross settleable solids. The hydrodynamic force of the swirl action increases the
gravitational separation of floatables, gross pollutants and grit from the stormwater. It uses a
sloping base, a dip plate and internal components to assist in pollutant removal. The Downstream
DefenderTM comes in standard manhole sizes ranging from 4 to 10 feet in diameter for flows
from 0.75 to 13 cfs. For larger flows, units can be custom designed up to 40 feet in diameter.
2.8.1.3 StormceptorTM
The StormceptorTM uses a deep settling chamber with a high flow by-pass to capture
floatable materials, gross pollutants and settleable solids. They are available in prefabricated
sizes up to 12 feet in diameter by 6 to 8 feet deep. The cost of the StormceptorTM is based on
costs of the two system elements, the treatment chamber and by-pass insert, and the access way
and fittings.
2.8.1.4 VortechsTM
VortechsTM (Vortechnics) removes floatable materials and settleable solids with a swirlconcentrator and flow-control system. It is constructed in precast concrete and consists of the
following main components: baffle wall and oil chamber, circular grid chamber, and flow control
chamber. Vortechnics manufactures nine standard-sized units that range from 9 feet by 3 feet to
18 feet by 12 feet.
60
NA
$10,000 to $35,000 per precast unit (including

installation)
Downstream
DefenderTM
61
NA
$2,300 to $7,200 per cfs

capacity (including
installation)
Continuous
Deflective
SeparatorsTM (CDS)
Separator Type
Inspection every month for a period of one year of

operation to determine rate of sediment and floatables
accumulation.
Use of sump vac to remove captured floatables and
solids.
Maintenance of CDS is site-specific and requires that

the unit be checked after every runoff for first 30 days
after installation.
The system is inspected for the amount of sediment
deposition using a dip stick.
Monthly inspections are also recommended during the
wet season.
Yearly inspection to examine for damage of the screen
and to determine if the unit needs to be cleaned out.
Table 39. Costs of Hydrodynamic Separators (US EPA, 1999; Stormceptor, 1997)
Cost per unit
O & M Cost
Comments
VortechsTM
StormceptorTM
Separator Type
62
Comments
Maintenance depends on site
conditions and is indicated by sediment
depth. Needs a vacuum truck.
Cleaning is required once a year and typical
Cleaning is required when the
$7,600 to $33,560 for units cleaning cost (equipment and personnel) is
that range from 900 to 7200 estimated to be $250 and disposal costs is sediment reaches 1 foot of its capacity
limit.
gallons + cost of installation estimated to be in the order of $300 to
Visual inspection is performed through
$500.
the manhole by dipping a dip stick and is
especially recommended for units that
may capture petroleum based pollutants.
Inspections once a month is required
during the first year of installation and
after heavy contaminant loadings like
$10,000 to $40,000 per unit
winter sanding, fuel spills etc.
that can treat runoff flows
The unit requires cleaning when
from 1.6 cfs to 25 cfs (not
NA
sediment reaches within one foot of the
including shipping and
inlet pipe.
installation)
Cleaning involves removal of
sediments and is generally done using a
vacuum truck.
Cost per unit
Table 39 Continued.
O & M Cost
2.8.2 Oil-Water Separator

One example oil-water separator (OWS) for treating stormwater is the Aero-Power 500
gallon STI-P3 unit which separates oil and water by allowing the oil droplets to collide and
coalesce to become large globules that are then captured in the unit. This OWS unit consists of
three compartments: forebay, oil separator, and afterbay. The forebay captures gross sediments,
the oil separator contains a parallel corrugated coalescer and a removable oleophallic fiber
coalescer to promote separation of oil, and the afterbay discharges treated stormwater with less
than 10 mg/L of grease and oil concentration. Table 40 shows the summary of construction and
annual operation and maintenance cost for one CALTRANS Oil-water separator.
Table 40. CALTRANS Oil-water Separator Costs
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Construction
Cost
Annual
Cost (1999
($/m3) of water
O&M Cost
dollars)
volume
(1999 $)
128,305
1,970
790
The OWS needs to be inspected for accumulated sediments in the forebay and oil in the
oil separator. Operation and maintenance efforts are based on: administration, inspection,
maintenance, vector control, equipment use, and direct costs (Table 41).
Table 41. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Oil-Water
Separator (CALTRANS, 2001)
Labor
Equipment and
Activity
Cost ($)
Hours
Materials ($)
Inspections
1
0
44
Maintenance
10
0
440
Vector Control
12
0
744
Administration
3
0
132
Direct Costs
180
180
Total
26
$180
$1,540
2.8.3 Storm Drain Inlet Inserts
Storm drain inlet inserts are typically bags or trays of filter media, filter fabrics, or
screens, designed to trap contaminants and debris prior to discharge into storm drain systems.
They are manufactured stormwater treatment controls and have low capital costs compared to
other controls. They can usually be placed into traditional storm inlets without alteration of the
inlets. However, they may have very high maintenance costs to prevent clogging if placed in
areas of large debris loadings.
FossilFilter drain inlet inserts have a trough structure that is installed under the inlet of
a storm drain inlet. The trough is made of fiberglass and consists of a large center opening for
bypass of water when flow-through capacity of the filter is exceeded. The trough contains
stainless steel filter cartridges filled with amorphous alumina silicate for removal of petroleum
hydrocarbons and other contaminants.
StreamGaurd drain inlet inserts are a conical shaped porous bag made of
polypropylene fabric and contains an oil absorbent polymer. As stormwater flows through the
63
insert, the fabric absorbs oil and retains sediment. The overflow cutouts near the top of the cone
allow bypass when the fabrics flow through capacity is exceeded.
Although the size of the inlets vary, the variation is not enough to significantly affect the
cost of an inlet insert. In most cases, they are installed on a unit (per drain inlet) basis and not
according to runoff volume or flow basis, although most are intended to treat up to about 20 gpm
before bypassing excess flows. Table 42 shows the construction and annual maintenance cost for
one CALTRANS storm drain inlet for a single test location.
Table 42. CALTRANS Storm Drain Inlet Costs (CALTRNS, 2001)
Construction
Annual
Cost/WQV ($/m3)
Cost (1999 $)
O&M Cost (1999 $)
370
10
1,100
Maintenance involves frequent inspections for debris and trash during rainy seasons and
monthly inspections during dry seasons. Also, the inlets need to be inspected for oil and grease at
the end of each target storm. The operation and maintenance efforts are based on: administration,
inspection, maintenance, vector control, equipment use, and direct costs (Table 43).
Table 43. Average Annual Maintenance Costs of Storm Drain Inlet Inserts
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Activity
Labor Hours Equipment and Materials (1999, $)
Inspections
11
Maintenance
9
0
Vector Control
17
Administration
84
Direct Costs
563
Total
121
563
2.9 Stormwater Filters

A typical sand filter consists of two or three chambers. The first chamber acts as a
sedimentation chamber, where floatable and heavy sediments are removed. The second chamber
has the sand bed which removes additional pollutants by filtration. The third is the discharge
chamber, where treated filtrate is discharged through an underdrain system either into the storm
drainage system or directly into surface waters. The following paragraphs present the costs
associated with the Austin sand filter, the Delaware sand filter, the Washington, D.C., sand filter
and the Storm-Filter.
2.9.1 Austin and Delaware Sand-Filters
The Austin sand filter has a sedimentation chamber and an open air filter separated by a
concrete wall. Runoff from the sedimentation chamber flows into the filter chamber through a
perforated riser. The orifice riser is placed in such a position that the full sedimentation chamber
would drain in 24 hours. The filter chamber has a level spreader to distribute runoff evenly over
the 450 mm deep bed. Construction cost estimates by the U.S.EPA (EPA 832-F-99-007, Sept
1999) is $18,500 (1997 dollars) for a 1 acre drainage area. The cost per acre decreases with
larger drainage areas.
64
The Delaware Sand-Filter consists of a separate sedimentation chamber and filter

chamber. A permanent pool of runoff is maintained in the sedimentation chamber. As runoff
enters the sedimentation chamber, standing water is forced into the filter chamber through a weir.
The sand filter is 300 mm deep and the storage in the unit accommodates 5 mm runoff. The
construction costs estimated by the U.S.EPA (EPA 832-F-99-007, Sept 1999) for a Delaware
sand filter is similar to a precast Washington, D.C. sand filter system, with the exception of
lower excavation costs because of the Delaware filters shallower depth.
CALTRANS installed and monitored sand filters at six locations (Table 44). The sites
selected were relatively small, highly impervious watersheds such as park-and-ride (P&R) lots
and maintenance stations (MS). The Austin filter was installed at five locations: Eastern
Regional MS, Foothill MS, Termination P&R, La Costa P&R and SR-78/I-5 P&R. The
Delaware sand filter was installed at one location: Escondido MS. Excessive amounts of
sediments caused premature clogging of the filter media. The design characteristics of the
installed sand filter are shown in Table 45.
Table 44. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics for Sand Filters
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Watershed Area
Site Location
Filter Type
Impervious Cover (%)
(Hectare)
Eastern Regional MS
Austin
0.6
90
Foothill MS
Austin
0.7
100
Termination P&R
Austin
1.1
90
La Costa P&R
Austin
1.1
56
SR-78/I-5 P&R
Austin
0.3
80
Escondido MS
Delaware
0.3
85
Table 45. Design Characteristics of the CALTRANS Sand Filters (CALTRANS, 2001)
Sedimentation
Filter
Design Storm
WQV
Site Location
Chamber
Chamber
(mm)
(m3)
Area (m2)
Area (m2)
Eastern Regional
25
115
54
27
MS
Foothill MS
25
217
102
40
Termination P&R
25
222
114
57
La Costa P&R
36
286
180
72
SR-78/I-5 P&R
38
106
56
32
12.2
Escondido MS
48
27
27
(120)a
Note: a The volume of water treated at Escondido MS is 120 m3 during the design storm. The
Delaware design specifications require the filter design volume to be 38 m3/ha of
tributary area. Therefore, the sedimentation basin at Escondido is designed to capture
12.2 m3 of water; but during the design storm, 120 m3 of water flows through the device.
Table 46 shows the actual construction costs for the sand filters. At the District 7 site,
pumps were used to return treated runoff to the storm drain system. At the District 11 site,
65
gravity flow was used. In addition, excavation was less at the District 11 site, further reducing
the costs (1999 dollars).
Table 46. Actual Construction Costs for Sand Filters (CALTRANS, 2001)
District
Site
Eastern Regional MS
7 (Los Angeles) Foothill MS
Termination P&R
La Costa P&R
11 (San Diego) SR-78/I-5 P&R
Escondido MS
Actual
Cost ($)
Actual Cost w/o

Monitoring ($)
353,702
485,946
471,637
239,678
222,529
453,012
342,660
476,106
463,461
225,285
211,631
416,714
Cost w/o
monitoring/WQV
($/m3)
2,979
2,194
2,088
787
1,997
3,472
An adjusted cost for the Austin Sand Filter was obtained by excluding the cost of pumps
and shoring costs from the District 7 costs and using the average clearing and grubbing costs for
similar stormwater controls instead of using the original clearing and grubbing cost (Table 47).
Also, the adjusted cost used an average facility reconstruction cost for similar stormwater
controls, excluding a 3 percent add-on for miscellaneous costs for site-specific factors. In the
case of the Delaware Sand Filter, the actual cost was adjusted because of the contractors
inexperience with extensive cast-in-place construction, and due to the device being subject to
heavy traffic loads.
Table 47. Adjusted Construction Costs for Sand Filters
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Adjusted
Cost/WQV
Sand filter
Construction Cost ($)
($/m3)
Austin Sand filter
Mean (5)
242,799
1,447
High
314,346
2,118
Low
203,484
746
Delaware Sand Filter
One Location
230,145
1,912
Maintenance involves removal of sediments from the sedimentation chamber when the
accumulation exceeds 300 mm, and removal of the uppermost layer (50 mm) of the sand bed
when the drain time exceeds 48 hours. Also, the removed sand must be immediately replaced by
new sand to restore the original depth. The filters need to be inspected weekly for trash
accumulation and monthly for damage to the inside or outside structure, emergence of woody
vegetation and evidence of graffiti or vandalism. Table 48 shows the associated annual
maintenance costs.
66
Table 48. Actual Average Annual Maintenance Effort for Sand Filters
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Equipment and Materials
Activity
Labor Hours
($)
Inspections
12
0
Maintenance
40
40
Vector Control
41
0
Administration
65
0
Direct Cost
832
Total
158
872
The expected annual maintenance cost for the sand filter is shown in Table 49.
Table 49. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final Version of Sand Filter
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Labor
Equipment and
Activity
Cost (1999 $)
Hours
Materials (1999 $)
Inspections
4
0
176
Maintenance
36
125
1,709
Vector Control
0
0
0
Administration
3
0
132
Direct Costs
888
888
Total
43
$1,013
2,905
2.9.2 Washington, D.C. Sand Filter
The Washington, D.C sand filter consists of three underground chambers. The sand filter
is designed to accept the first 0.5 inches of runoff. The sedimentation chamber removes
floatables and coarse sediments from runoff. Runoff is discharged from the sedimentation
chamber through a submerged weir into a filtration chamber that consists of sand and gravel
layers totaling 1 meter in depth with underdrain piping wrapped in filter fabric. The underdrain
system collects the filtered water and drains them into a third chamber where the water is
collected and discharged.
The sand filters should be inspected after every storm event. The Washington D.C. sand
filters experienced clogging about every 3 to 5 years. Accumulated trash, debris and paper
should be removed from the sand filters every 6 months. Corrective maintenance of the filtration
system involves removal and replacement of the top layers of the sand and gravel or filter fabric
that has become clogged. Sand filter systems require periodic removal of vegetative growth. The
cost for precast Washington, D.C. sand filters, with drainage areas less than 0.4 hectares (1 acre),
ranges between $6,600 and $11,000 in 1997 dollars (USEPA, Sept. 1999). This is considerably
less than the cost for the same size cast-in-place system. Also, the cost to replace the gravel
layer, filter fabric and top portion of the sand for Washington, D.C. sand filter is approximately
$1,700 in 1997 dollars (USEPA, Sept. 1999).
67
2.9.3 Storm-Filter
The Contech Stormwater Solutions, Inc. Storm-Filter is a water quality treatment
device that uses cartridges filled with different filter media. In this cost analysis, the filter media
was perlite/zeolite and the following siting conditions were used:
No construction activity up-gradient or no bare soil
Tributary area of less than 8 ha.
Hydraulic head of 1 m to operate by gravity flow
The Storm-Filter is designed based on the runoff flows. The maintenance site chosen
for the cost analysis used by CALTRANS was Kearny Mesa, San Diego (0.6 ha.) for a design
storm of 36 mm, design storm discharge of 76 L/s, water quality volume (WQV) of 194 m3
containing 86 canisters and 3 chambers (Tables 50,51 and 52). The perlite/zeolite combination
was chosen for this site as perlite is recommended for the removal of TSS and oil and grease,
while zeolite is recommended for the removal of soluble metals, ammonium and some organics.
Table 50. Summary of Contributing Watershed Characteristics
for CALTRANS Storm-Filter (CALTRANS, 2001)
Watershed Area
Impervious Cover
Site
Land Use
(ha.)
(%)
Kearny Mesa
Maintenance Station
0.6
100
Table 51. Design Characteristics of the CALTRANS Storm-Filter (CALTRANS, 2001)
Design Storm
Design Storm
WQV Number of
Number of
Site
Discharge
3
(mm.)
(m )
canisters
Chambers
(L/s)
Kearny Mesa
36
76
194
86
3
Table 52. Actual Construction Cost for Storm-Filter
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Actual Cost
Actual Cost w/o
Cost/WQV
Site
(1999 $)
monitoring (1999 $)
($/m3)
Kearny Mesa
325,517
305,355
1,575
The adjustment of construction costs was associated with features associated with
monitoring. Excluding this cost reduces the cost by 6 percent (Table 53).
Table 53. Adjusted Construction Costs for Storm-Filter,
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Adjusted Construction Cost/WQV Annual O&M Cost
Cost (1999 $)
($/m3)
($)
305,356
1,572
7,620
Maintenance of the Storm-Filter includes inspection of sediment accumulation, and
removal from the pretreatment chamber when accumulation exceeds 300 mm, weekly inspection
during wet weather season, monthly inspection according to manufacturers guidelines, including
flushing of underdrains.
68
Table 54 presents the expected maintenance costs that would be incurred for a StormFilter serving about 2 ha of 100% paved area, and following these maintenance activities
(CALTRANS, 2003):
Perform inspections and maintenance as recommended, which includes checking for
media clogging, replacement of filter media, and inspection for standing water.
Schedule semiannual inspection for beginning and end of the wet season to identify
potential problems.
Remove accumulated trash and debris in the pretreatment chamber, stilling basin, and the
filter chamber during routine inspections.
Remove accumulated sediment in the pretreatment chamber every 5 years or when the
sediment occupies 10 percent of the volume of the filter chamber, whichever occurs first.
Table 54. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final Version of Storm-Filter
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Cost ($)
Activity
Labor Hours
($)
Inspections
1
0
44
Maintenance
39
131
1,847
Vector Control
12
0
744
Administration
3
0
132
Direct Costs
2,800
2,800
Total
55
2,931
5,567
2.9.4 Multi-Chambered Treatment Train
The multi-chambered treatment train (MCTT) is a device that can be installed
underground in areas having little space for more conventional surface treatment. It was
developed by Pitt, et al. (1997) to provide high levels of treatment of a variety of metallic and
organic pollutants, along with conventional pollutants. It includes a combination of unit
processes, including a grit chamber to capture large particulates, a main settling tank to capture
particulates down to very small sizes, and a final sorption/ion-exchange chamber to capture
filterable forms of pollutants. Several MCTTs have been constructed as part of demonstration
projects, and some cost information was developed as part of these projects.
A Milwaukee, WI, MCTT installation is at a public works garage and yard and serves
about 0.1 ha (0.25 acre) of pavement. This MCTT was designed to withstand very heavy vehicles
driving over the unit. The estimated cost was $54,000 (including a $16,000 engineering cost), but
the actual total capital cost was $72,000. The high cost was likely due to uncertainties associated
with construction of an unknown device by the contractors and because it was a retro-fit
installation. It therefore had to fit within very tight site layout constraints. As an example,
installation problems occurred due to sanitary sewerage not being accurately located as mapped.
The Minocqua, WI, MCTT is located at a 1 ha (2.5 acre) newly paved parking area
serving a state park and downtown commercial area. It is located in a grassed area and is also a
retro-fit installation, designed to fit within an existing storm drainage system. The installed
capital cost of this MCTT was about $95,000. Box culverts 3.0 m X 4.6 m (10 ft X 15 ft) were
used for the main settling chamber (13 m, or 42 ft long) and the filtering chamber (7.3 m, or 24 ft
long). The grit chamber (a 7.6 m3, 2,000 gal. baffled septic tank) was also used to pre-treat water
entering the MCTT.
69
It is anticipated that MCTT costs could be substantially reduced if designed to better

integrate with a new drainage system and not installed as a retro-fitted stormwater control
practice. Plastic tank manufactures have also expressed an interest in preparing pre-fabricated
MCTT units that could be sized in a few standard sizes for small critical source areas. It is
expected that these pre-fabricated units would be much less expensive and easier to install for
small sites than the above custom built units.
CALTRANS, during its BMP retrofit pilot program, installed MCTTs at two locations:
Via Verde Park and Rides and Lakewood Park and Rides. A third unit has since been installed at
a maintenance yard. Table 55 shows the summary of the contributing watershed characteristics
for the MCTT retrofit program conducted by CALTRANS.
Table 55. Summary of Contributing Watersheds Characteristics for CALTRANS MCTT Retrofit
Program (CALTRANS, 2001)
Watershed
Impervious
Design
Site
Land Use
Area (ha.)
Cover (%)
Storm (mm.)
Via Verde P&R
Park & Ride lot
0.44
100
25
Lakewood P&R
Park & Ride lot
0.76
100
25
MCTTs need a vertical distance from the pavement surface to the stormwater drainage
pipe of at least 1.5 m for gravity flow. In most cases, this is provided by having the inlet at the
surface of the paved area, dropping directly into the initial catchbasin/grit chamber. These two
test sites lacked sufficient head and two pumps were therefore installed at each site, one to
transfer runoff from the sedimentation chamber to the filter chamber and one to return treated
discharge water to the pre-existing drainage system. These pumps were triggered manually on
the day following a storm event to ensure runoff remained in the sedimentation chamber for 24
hours.
Standard three-chambered MCTTs were used at these sites. The first chamber consisted
of a catchbasin with a sump and packed column aerators. This is followed by a main settling
chamber with tube settlers to improve particulate removal and sorbent pillows to capture floating
hydrocarbons. The sedimentation chamber was designed so that the water quality volume was
held above the tube settlers, which are 0.6 m deep with 0.3 m of plenum space underneath. The
dimension of the MCTT used in these sites is shown in Table 56. The final chamber consisted of
600 mm thick sorbent/ion-exchange (filter) media of 50/50 mixture of sand and peat moss (the
Milwaukee MCTT also contained activated carbon in the last chamber, along with the peat and
sand).
Table 56. Design Characteristics for CALTRANS MCTT Retrofit Program
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Sedimentation
Filter Chamber
Site
WQV (m3)
2
Chamber Area (m )
Area (m2)
Via Verde P&R
123
35.5
17.4
Lakewood P&R
173
61.2
32.9
The following construction costs of the CALTRANS MCTTs included engineering
design for the retrofit sites, excavation costs, grading, material, filter media, unknown field
conditions (such as encountering boulders and unmapped utility lines), and labor (Table 57).
70
Table 57. Actual Construction Costs for MCTTs

(CALTRANS, 2001)
Actual
Cost w/o
Actual Cost w/o
Construction
monitoring/WQV
Site
monitoring (1999 $)
Cost (1999 $)
($/m3)
Via Verde P&R
383,793
375,617
3,054
Lakewood P&R
464,743
456,567
2,639
Table 58 shows the adjusted costs for the MCTTs excluding the cost of pumps (site did
not allow gravity drainage) and extensive shoring (due to space constraints at the site). The costs
were reduced by 41 percent and 52 percent for both locations. Also, miscellaneous site factors
that adjusted the cost by 1 percent were also excluded. The CALTRANS costs also reflect the
mandated LA County design storm of 25 mm. The recommended design, based on continuous
long-term simulations for the area, was much less than this volume (closer to 8 mm or runoff).
Table 58. Adjusted Construction Costs for MCTTs
(CALTRANS, 2001)
Adjusted Construction Cost
MCTT
Cost/WQV ($/m3)
(1999 $)
Mean
275,616
1,875
High
320,531
1,895
Low
230,701
1,856
Maintenance of the MCTTs included removal of sediments from the sedimentation
chambers when accumulation exceeds 150 mm and removing and replacing the media every 3
years, and replacement of sorbent pillows if darkened by oily stains. Neither of these
maintenance activities were needed during the CALTRANS study, since even after two wet
seasons, the total accumulated sediments was less than 25 mm. Inspections for structural repairs
and leaks, and repair or replacement of pumps, plus vector control are included in the following
maintenance costs (Table 59).
Table 59. Expected Annual Maintenance Costs for Final
Version of MCTTs (CALTRANS, 2001)
Activity
Labor Hours
(1999 $)
Inspections
24
Maintenance
84
308
Vector Control
70
Administration
131
Direct Cost
2,504
Total
309
2,812
2.10 Conservation Design Controls

Conservation design stormwater controls include a wide range of practices, including
better site layout and decreased use of directly connected paved and roof areas. These practices
71
are almost exclusively part of initial developments, and are difficult to retrofit. The following
discussions are for some of the more common conservation design elements.
2.10.1 Grass Filter Strips
Grass filter strips differ from grassed swales in that the strips are designed to
accommodate overland sheetflow, rather than channelized flow. The advantages of grass filter
strips are low cost and ease of maintenance. The disadvantages of filter strips include the land
requirements and the tendency for stormwater runoff to concentrate and form a channel, which
essentially short circuits the filter strip causing erosion and reduced pollutant reductions.
The costs for vegetated filter strips can be divided into mobilization and demobilization
of equipment, site preparation, site development, and contingencies. Site construction activities
include the placement of salvaged top soil, seeding and mulching, or sodding. Contingencies
include planning, engineering, administration, and legal fees. Tables 60, 61 and 62 present the
estimated capital cost (1987 dollars) of 25 feet, 50 feet and 100 feet wide grass swales
respectively.
Maintenance of grassed filter strips include management of a dense vegetative cover;
prevention of channel or gully formation, frequent spot repairs, fertilization (very minimal), and
irrigation. Also, exposed areas should be quickly reseeded, or sodded. The strips should be
examined annually for damage by foot or vehicular traffic, gully erosion, damage to vegetation
and evidence of concentrated flows. Table 63 shows the average annual operation and
maintenance cost for grassed filter strips.
72
73
Table 60. Estimated Capital Cost of a 25-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low Moderate
High
MobilizationDemobilization-Light Strip
1
107
274
441
107
274
441
Site Preparation
Clearing
Acre
0.70
2,200
3,800
5,400 1,540
2,600
3,780
Grubbing
Acre
0.70
3,800
5,200
6,600 2,660
3,640
4,620
0.10
0.20
0.30
333
667
1,000
Grading
Square yard 3,333
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Square yard 1,667
0.40
1.60
667
1,667
2,667
1.00
1.20
3.60 2,000
4,001
6,001
Sod
Square yard 1,667
2.40
Subtotal
-----7,307
12,909
18,509
Contingencies
Strip
1
25 percent 25 percent 25 percent 1,827
3,227
4,627
Total
-----9,134
16,136
23,136
74
Table 61. Estimated Capital Cost of a 50-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
MobilizationDemobilizationLight
Strip
1
107
274
441
107
274
Site Preparation
Clearing
Acre
1.30
2,200
3,800
5,400
2,860
4,940
Grubbing
Acre
1.30
5,200
6,600
4,940
6,760
3,800
Grading
Square yard
6,292
0.10
0.20
0.30
629
1,258
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch Square yard
3,146
0.40
1.60
1,258
3,146
1.00
Sod
Square yard
3,146
1.20
2.40
3.60
3,775
7,550
Subtotal
-----13,569
23,928
Contingencies
Strip
3,392
5,982
Total
-----16,961
29,910
5,034
11,326
34,289
8,572
42,861
7,020
8,580
1,888
441
High
75
Table 62. Estimation of Capital Cost of a 100-foot Wide Grassed Filter Strip (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
MobilizationDemobilizationLight
Strip
1
107
274
441
107
274
Site Preparation
Clearing
Acre
2.50
2,200
3,800
5,400
5,500
9,500
Grubbing
Acre
2.50
6,600
9,500
13,000
3,800
5,200
Grading
Square yard 12,100
0.10
0.20
0.30
1,210
2,420
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Square Yard 6,050
0.40
1.60
2,420
6,050
1.00
Sod
Square Yard 6,050
1.20
2.40
3.60
7,260
14,520
Subtotal
-----25,997
45,764
Contingencies
Strip
6,499
11,441
Total
-----32,496
57,205
9,680
21,780
65,531
16,383
81,914
13,500
16,500
3,630
441
High
76
Table 63. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Grassed Filter Strips (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost
Strip Width
Component
Comment
(1987 $)
25 feet
50 feet
100 feet
$0.85/1000
Lawn Mowing
$0.17/linear foot
$0.34/linear foot $0.68/linear foot width times strip length.
square feet
Mow 8 times per year
Lawn maintenance area
$9/1000 square
General Lawn Care
$0.23/linear foot
$0.45/linear foot
$0.9/linear foot equals width times strip
feet/year
length
Area revegetated equals 1
$0.3/square yard $0.01/linear foot
$0.02/linear foot $0.03/linear foot percent of lawn
maintenance area per year
Inspect four times per
Filter Strip Inspection
$25/inspection
$0.1/linear foot
$0.1/linear foot
$0.1/linear foot
year
Total
-$0.51/linear foot
$0.91/linear foot $1.71/linear foot
--
2.10.2 Grass Swales

Grass swales are natural or man-made grass-lined channels, normally of parabolic or
trapezoidal cross sections, used to carry stormwater in place of curb and gutters and underground
pipes. Pollutants are removed by settling and infiltration into soil and by biological uptake of
nutrients. Swales may reduce runoff from roadway and adjacent tributary land areas by allowing
water to infiltrate. They also increase the time of concentration within the watershed, further
reducing peak flow rates. Grassed swales therefore provide the benefits of reducing peak flows
and increasing pollutant removal, at low capital cost. Swales are not practicable in areas with flat
grades, steep grades, or in wet or poorly drained soils.
The cost data on grassed swales found in Young, et al. (1996) is as follows:
(2.53)
C = KL
where
C = construction cost, January 1999 costs, $,
L = length of swale, ft, and
K = constant, 5 to 14 ($/ft)
The costs of grassed swales can be divided into a number of components: mobilization
and demobilization of equipment, site preparation, site development, and contingencies. Tables
64 and 65 present unit costs, calculated component costs, and total capital costs (1987 dollars)
for a 1.5 foot deep swale with a bottom foot of 1 foot and top width of 10 feet; and for a 3 foot
deep swale that is 3 feet deep having a top width of 21 feet. They have a length of 1,000 feet,
gradient of 2 percent, and side slopes of three horizontal to one vertical.
77
78
Table 64. Estimated Capital Cost of a 1.5-foot Deep, 10-feet Wide, 1,000-feet Long Grass Swale (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low Moderate
High
MobilizationDemobilization-Light Swale
1
107
274
441
107
274
441
Site Preparation
0.50
2,200
3,800
5,400 1,100
1,900
2,700
Clearing
Acre
3,800
5,200
6,600
Grubbing
Acre
0.25
950
1,300
1,650
372
2.10
3.70
5.30
781
1,376
1,972
General Excavation
Cubic yard
Level and Till
Square yard
1,210
0.20
0.35
0.50
242
424
605
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Square yard
0.40
1.60
484
1,210
1,936
1,210
1.00
Sod
Square yard
1,210
1.20
2.40
3.60 1,452
2,904
4,356
Subtotal
-----5,116
9,388 13,660
Contingencies
Swale
1 25 percent 25 percent 25 percent 1,279
2,347
3,415
Total
-----6,395
11,735 17,075
MobilizationDemobilization-Light
Site Preparation
Clearing
Grubbing
General Excavation
Level and Till
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Sod
Subtotal
Contingencies
Total
0.75
0.50
1,563
2,420
1,815
1,815
-1
--
Square yard
Square yard
-Swale
--
Acre
Acre
Cubic yard
Square yard
Swale
-25 percent
--
-25 percent
--
79
1.00
2.40
3,800
5,200
3.70
0.35
274
0.40
1.20
2,200
3,800
2.10
0.20
107
-25 percent
--
1.60
3.60
5,400
6,600
5.30
0.50
441
726
2,178
10,327
2,582
12,909
1,650
1,900
3,283
484
107
1,815
4,356
18,525
4,631
23,156
2,850
2,600
5,783
847
274
1,936
4,356
26,723
6,681
33,404
2,700
1,650
1,972
605
441
Table 65. Estimated Capital Cost of a 3.0-feet Deep, 21-feet Wide, 1,000-feet Long Grass Swale (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Table 66 shows the summary of the capital cost (1989) grass swales for different swale depths
and bottom width.
Table 66. Summary of Capital Costs in Thousands of Dollars
for Grass Swales (SEWRPC, 1991)
Bottom Width (ft.)
Swale Depth
(ft.)
1
3
5
8
10
1
8.5
9.6
11
13
15
3
21
23
25
27.5
29
5
39
42
43.5
46
49.5
The capital cost of grass swales as a function of swale depths for different bottom widths is
presented in Figure 15.
60
10 ft. bottom width
50
8 ft. bottom width

5 ft. bottom width
3 ft. bottom width
1 ft. bottom width
Capital Cost, 1989 $
40
30
20
10
0
0
Swale Depth, ft.
Figure 15. Capital Cost of Grass Swale for Different Swale Depths
A polynomial equation fitted to the data presented in Table 66 relates the capital cost of grass
swales to different bottom widths.
For 1 x 5 ft.
CC = Ax 2 + Bx + C
(2.54)
where
CC = capital cost, in thousands of dollars, and
x = swale depth, ft.
A, B, C = constants, depends on swale bottom width
Table 67 gives the values of the constants A, B and C for different swale widths.
80
Table 67. Constants A, B, C Values in Capital Cost Equation

for Different Swale Bottom Widths
Bottom Width (ft.)
Constant
1
3
5
8
10
A
0.69
0.70
0.56
0.50
0.81
B
3.50
3.90
4.75
5.25
3.75
C
4.31
5.00
5.69
7.25
10.44
Table 68 summarizes the operation and maintenance cost (1989 dollars) in thousands of dollars
for grass swales for different swale depths and bottom widths.
Table 68. Summary of O&M Costs for Grass Swales (SEWRPC, 1991)
Swale Depth,
Bottom Width (ft.)
(ft)
1
3
5
8
10
1
0.525
0.56
0.59
0.645
0.68
3
0.7175
0.75
0.785
0.8325
0.87
5
0.91
0.94
0.98
1.02
1.06
Swale maintenance costs (Table 69) include selected unit costs for debris removal, grass
mowing, spot reseeding and sodding, weed control, swale inspection, and program
administration.
81
82
Table 69. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for Grass Swales (SEWRPC, 1991)
Swale Size
(depth and top width)
Unit Cost
Component
Comment
1.5 feet deep, one foot 3 feet deep, three foot
(1987 $)
bottom width, 10 foot bottom width, 21 foot
top width
top width
Maintenance area =
$0.85/1,000 square
(top
width+10 feet) * length.
Lawn Mowing
$0.14/linear foot
$0.21/linear foot
feet
Mow 8 times per year
$9/1,000 square
Maintenance area =
General Lawn Care
$0.18/linear foot
$0.28/linear foot
feet/year
(top width+10 feet)* length
Swale Debris and
$0.10/square yard
$0.10/linear foot
$0.10/linear foot
-Litter Removal
Area revegetated equals
1 percent of lawn
$0.3/square yard
$0.01/linear foot
$0.01/linear foot
maintenance area per year
Program
Ponds inspected four
$0.15/linear foot/year,
$0.15/linear foot
$0.15/linear foot
Administration
plus $25/inspection
times per year
and Inspection
Total
-$0.58/linear foot
$0.75/linear foot
--
The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (1989 dollars) of grass swales as a function of swale
depths for different bottom widths is presented in Figure 16.
1.25
10 ft. bottom width

8 ft. bottom width
1
O&M cost, 1989 $
5 ft. bottom width

3 ft. bottom width
1 ft. bottom width
0.75
0.5
0
3
4
Swale depth, ft.
Figure 16. Operation and Maintenance Cost of Grass Swale for Different Swale Depths
A straight line (first order polynomial) is observed for the data presented in Table 66 as shown in
Equation 2.60.
C O & M = mx + B
(2.55)
where
CO&M = operation and maintenance cost, in thousands of dollars,
x = swale depth, ft., and
m, B = constants, depends on swale bottom width
The values of these constants determined form the regression equation fitted to the data has been
presented in Table 70.
Table 70. Constants m, B Values in O&M Cost Equation for
Different Swale Bottom Widths
Bottom Width (ft.)
Constant
1
3
5
8
10
m
0.096
0.095
0.098
0.094
0.095
B
0.429
0.465
0.493
0.551
0.585
These equations were added to WinSLAMM to allow cost estimate for grass swales. The
constants m, B values are adjusted according to the city selection based on cost index values in
83
WinSLAMM. Figure 17 shows the cost data input screen for grass swales in WinSLAMM
adjusted to 2005 in Birmingham, AL, conditions.
Figure 17. Cost Data Input Screen for Grass Swales in WinSLAMM
2.10.3 Permeable Pavement
Permeable pavement removes waterborne pollutants from stormwater runoff and allows it
to filter through the underlying soil. Permeable pavements functions similar to other infiltration
measures. The pavement traps some particulate bound pollutants, but most of the runoff and
pollutants are discharged to the groundwater, as there is usually little organic-rich soil beneath
permeable pavements that trap the pollutants as in most other infiltration devices.
A permeable pavement is constructed of a permeable asphalt or bituminous concrete
surface with a 2.5 to 4 inch thickness that is placed over a highly permeable layer of crushed
stone or gravel, 24 inches thick. A filter fabric can be placed beneath the gravel or stone layer to
prevent movement of fines into the deeper layers, although many installations show clogging of
the filter fabric, and most recent designs use rock filters and not filter fabrics. Runoff from the
stone and gravel layers then infiltrates into the soil. If the infiltration rate is slow, perforated
underdrain pipes can be placed in the stone layer to convey the water back to a surface waterway.
The primary advantage of permeable pavement is that it can be put to dual use reducing
land use requirements. But, permeable pavements are not as durable as conventional pavements.
Also, they are costlier than conventional pavements.
Construction costs involve site excavation, development and contingencies. Site

development components can include construction of the permeable surface layer, placement of
stone fill, filter layer, and supplemental underdrain system. Contingencies include planning,
engineering, administration and legal fees. Estimated incremental costs (over conventional
pavement) of a 1.0-acre permeable pavement parking lot (1989 dollars) are shown in Table 71.
86
Table 71. Estimated Incremental Cost of a 1.0-acre Permeable Pavement Parking Lot (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Cost ($)
Total Cost ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Site Preparation
General Excavation
2.10
3.70
5.30
3,049
5,372
Cubic yard
1,452
Site Development
Geotextile Fabric
Square yard
1.00
2.00
3.00
5,082
10,164
5,082
Crushed Stone Fill
Cubic yard
1,452
14.80
19.40
24.00 21,490
28,169
Permeable Pavement Square yard
0.50
1.00
2,420
3,630
4,840
0.50
Subtotal
-----32,041
47,335
Contingencies
Site
8,010
11,834
Total
-----40,051
59,169
15,246
34,848
4,840
82,630
15,658
98,288
7,696
High
Maintenance involves the need for frequent cleaning as they are prone to easy clogging.
Vacuum cleaning of the pavement may be required as much as four times a year, followed by jet
hosing to open up asphalt pores. The pavement surface needs to be annually inspected, and after
large storm events, for cracks and potholes. An observation well may be installed at the
downslope end of the pavement to monitor water levels in the storage layers and to collect water
samples. Incremental maintenance costs in 1989 dollars (Table 72) are estimated to be $200 per
acre per year regardless of the depth of the stone reservoir.
Table 72. Incremental Average Annual Maintenance Costs (Over Conventional Pavement) of a
Permeable Pavement Parking Lot (SEWRPC, 1991)
Permeable
Pavement
Component
Unit Cost
Comment
Parking Lot
Vacuum Cleaning
$17/acre vacuum
Vacuum and hose
and High-Pressure
cleaning, plus
area four times
$100/acre/year
Jet Hosing
$8.00/acre jet hosing
per year
Inspect four times
Inspection
$25/inspection
$100/acre/year
per year
Total
-$200/acre/year
-The cost of individual components and the estimated incremental capital cost, above
conventional pavement, for a 1 acre permeable pavement parking lot is presented in Table 65
(SEWRPC, 1991). Table 73 summarizes the capital costs and the O&M cost (1989 $) for
permeable pavement for different stone reservoir thicknesses.
Table 73. Summary of Incremental Capital and O&M Costs for Permeable
Pavement of Different Reservoir Thicknesses (SEWRPC, 1991)
Capital Cost (1000 $)
Incremental Stone
O&M
Reservoir Thickness (ft.) Low Cost Med. Cost High Cost Cost ($)
0.5
1
1.5
2
26
40
60
81
41
60
85
110
55
80
115
150
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Figure 18 shows the capital and O&M cost, 1989 $ of permeable pavement for different reservoir
depths.
87
1000
Cost, 1989 $
100
High Cost
Medium Cost
Low Cost
10
Operation and Maintenance Cost
0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Stone reservoir depth, ft.
2.5
Figure 18. Cost of Permeable Pavement for Different Stone Reservoir Depths
Regression-equations fitted to the data presented in Table 73 results in first-order polynomials as
shown in Equations 2.56, 2.57 and 2.58.
For low cost:
C = 37 D + 5.5
(2.56)
For medium cost:
C = 46.4 D + 16
(2.57)
For high cost:
C = 64 D + 20
(2.58)
where
C = capital cost, 1989 $ and
D = stone reservoir thickness, ft.
These equations were included in WinSLAMM to enable the capital, and annual operation and
maintenance costs for permeable pavements to be calculated. Figure 19 shows the cost
input/section screen for permeable pavement in WinSLAMM.
88
Figure 19. Cost Data Input Screen for Permeable Pavement in WinSLAMM
2.10.4 Infiltration Trenches
Infiltration devices remove stormwater pollutants by filtering the runoff through the
underlying organic-rich soil. There are a number of different, but closely related devices that
operate in a similar manner; rain gardens, biofilters, and bioretention devices. Infiltration
trenches are used in places where space is a problem. They consist of excavating a void volume,
lining it with a filter fabric (which may clog, so rock filters may be a better choice), and then
installing underdrains (optional) and back-fill material. The media can range from crushed stone
(infiltration trenches providing more storage, but with less treatment) to soils amended with
compost (enhanced evapotranspiration and better treatment of infiltrating water).
Infiltration trenches are used to serve areas less than 10 acres. The surface of the trench
consists of vegetation and with special inlets to distribute the water evenly. Infiltration trenches
help recharge groundwater, reduce runoff and augment low stream flows. Rain gardens generally
serve a much smaller area, generally just a portion of runoff from an adjacent roof.
Maintenance of infiltration trenches involve annual inspections and inspections after
every storm event, mowing, vegetative buffer strip maintenance, and rehabilitation of trench
when clogging begins to occur. Infiltration trenches have a history of failure due to clogging,
while the smaller rain gardens have a better operational history.
The available cost data for construction of infiltration trenches by Young, et al. (1996)
gives total cost as a function of the total volume of the trench:
89
(2.59)
where
C = 157V 0.63
C = construction cost, January 1999 costs, $, and

V = volume of trench, ft3
Wiegand, et al. (1985) provides construction costs of infiltration trenches as a function of
storage volume as:
(2.60)
where
C = 26.55Vs 0.634 , Vs < 10,000 cu ft
C = construction cost, 1985 $, and

Vs = storage volume defined as stormwater volume of void space for the maximum
design event frequency
The SEWRPC data presented in Tables 74 and 75 gives the cost (1989 dollars) of
mobilization and demobilization of equipment, site preparation, site development, and
contingencies for infiltrations trenches of varying sizes.
90
91
Table 74. Estimated Capital Cost of a 3-feet Deep, 4-feet Wide, 100-feet Long Infiltration Trench (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Costs ($)
Total Costs ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low Moderate High
1
107
274
441
107
274
441
Trench
Site Preparation
0.12
2,200
3,800
5,400
264
456
648
Clearing
Acre
3,800
5,200
6,600
52
Grubbing
Acre
0.01
38
66
43.3
2.10
5.60
9.10
91
242
394
Trench Excavation
Cubic yard
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Square yard
111
0.40
1.00
1.60
44
111
178
Sod
Square yard
444
1.20
3.60
533
1066 1,598
2.40
Crushed Stone fill
Cubic yard
43.3
14.80
19.40
24.00
641
840 1,039
Geotextile Fabric
Square yard
171
1.00
3.00
171
342
513
2.00
Shallow Observation Well Vertical foot
66.00
254.00
4
160.00
264
640 1,016
Subtotal
-----2,153
4,023 5,893
Contingencies
Trench
538
1,006 1,473
Total
-----2,691
5,029 7,367
92
Table 75. Estimated Capital Cost of a 6-feet Deep, 10-feet Wide, 100-feet Long Infiltration Trench (SEWRPC, 1991)
Unit Costs ($)
Total Costs ($)
Component
Unit
Extent
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
1
107
274
441
107
274
441
Trench
Site Preparation
0.14
2,200
3,800
5,400
308
532
756
Clearing
Acre
Grubbing
Acre
0.02
3,800
5,200
6,600
76
104
132
222
2.10
5.60
9.10
466
1,243
2,020
Trench Excavation
Cubic yard
Site Development
Salvaged Topsoil,
Seed and Mulch
Square yard
111
0.40
1.00
1.60
44
111
178
Sod
Square yard
444
1.20
3.60
533
1,066
1,598
2.40
Crushed Stone fill
Cubic yard
222
14.80
19.40
24.00
3,268
4,307
5,328
Geotextile Fabric
Square yard
388
1.00
3.00
171
776
1,164
2.00
Shallow Observation Well Vertical foot
4
66.00
160.00
254.00
264
1,120
1,778
Subtotal
-----2,153
9,533 13,395
Contingencies
Trench
1,418
2,383
3,349
Total
-----7,088
11,916 16,744
Maintenance costs include buffer strip maintenance and trench inspection and
rehabilitation. The average annual operation and maintenance costs (1989 dollars) for infiltration
trenches of two different sizes are listed in Table 76.
93
$100
$79
$51
$25/inspection, plus
$50/trench/year
for administration
$0.4 to 19 per
linear foot at 15
year intervals
$0.25 to $3.7 per
linear foot at 5year intervals
Program Administration
and Trench Inspection
Major Trench
Rehabilitation
Minor Trench
Rehabilitation
94
$45
$9/100 square
feet/year
General Buffer Strip

Lawn Care
$10
100 Feet Long by

Three Feet Deep by
Four Feet Wide
$0.85/1000 square
feet/mowing
Unit Cost
Buffer Strip Mowing
Component
$126
$334
$100
$45
$10
100 Feet Long by

Six Feet Deep by
10 Feet Wide
Table 76. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for

Infiltration Trenches (SEWRPC, 1991)
Trench Size
Inspect twice per year

area cleared minus area
grubbed. Mow twice
per year
area cleared minus area
grubbed
Comment
Infiltration trench costs are used to calculate biofilter costs in the Source Loading and
Management Model (WinSLAMM). Table 77 presents capital costs in thousands of dollars for
biofilters of different trench depths and trench bottom widths.
Table 77. Summary of Capital Cost of Biofilters for Different Trench Widths and
Depths, in Thousands of Dollars (SEWRPC, 1991)
Trench
Width (ft.)
2
5
10
15
20
25
30
Trench Depth (ft.)

3
40.5
54
75
98
120
140
170
4
46
63
90
120
145
175
205
5
52
70.5
103
140
160
205
235
6
57
80.5
120
155
200
230
280
8
64
95
145
198
240
300
340
10
74
110
170
230
300
365
410
12
86
135
204
270
345
415
500
The capital cost of biofiltration device plotted against trench widths for different trench depths is
shown in Figure 20.
600
500
12 ft. trench depth
10 ft. trench depth
Capital cost, 1989 $
400
8 ft. trench depth

300
6 ft. trench depth

5 ft. trench depth
4 ft. trench depth
200
3 ft. trench depth
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Trench Width, ft.
Figure 20. Capital Cost of Biofiltration Device for Different Bottom Widths
First-order polynomial curves best represent the data in Table 77. The equation obtained is of the
form:
C c = mx + B
(2.61)
95
where
Cc = capital cost, 1989 $,
x = trench width, ft., and
m, B = constants, depends on trench depth
m, B values for different trench depths determined from the linear regression equation are
presented in Table 78.
Table 78. m, B Values for Different Depths for Biofiltration Device
Trench depth, ft
Constant
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
m
4.52
5.63
6.53
7.82
9.94
12.30 14.50
B
30.53
34.31
38.08
40.78
45.43
48.99 57.67
Table 79 presents the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for biofiltration device.
Table 79. Summary of O&M Costs for Biofiltration Device,
in Thousands of Dollars (SEWRPC, 1991)
Trench Depth, ft.
Trench Width, ft.
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
10
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
7.00
8.10
9.20
25
9.20
10.40 11.40
12.80
15.20 17.50
20.05
The O&M costs plotted against trench widths for different depths is shown in Figure 21.
25.0
20.0
12 ft. trench depth
O&M cost, 1989 $
10 ft. trench depth

8 ft. trench depth
15.0
6 ft. trench depth

5 ft. trench depth
4 ft. trench depth
10.0
3 ft. trench depth
5.0
0.0
0
10
15
20
25
Trench width, ft.
Figure 21. O&M Costs of Biofiltration Devices for Different Trench Widths
96
30
This data was plotted and a first-order polynomial regression equation was fitted:
CO & M = mx + B
(2.62)
where
CO&M = operation and maintenance cost, 1989 $,
x = trench width, ft., and
m, B = constants, depends on trench depth, ft.
Table 80 presents the values of the constants m and B in operation and maintenance cost
equation for different trench depths.
Table 80. m,B Values for O&M Cost Equation for Biofiltration Device
Trench depth, ft
Constant
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
m
0.31
0.36
0.39
0.45
0.55
0.63 0.72
B
1.37
1.40
1.57
1.47
1.53
1.83 1.97
Figure 22 shows the cost data input screen for biofiltration device in WinSLAMM. WinSLAMM
adjusts the cost data presented in the tables for the selected city for 2005 by adjusting the m, B
values. In this Figure 22, the m, B values are adjusted to 2005 conditions for Birmingham, AL.
Figure 22. Cost Data Input Screen for Biofiltration Device in WinSLAMM
97
2.10.5 Green Roofs

A green roof consists of a growing material placed over a waterproofing membrane on a
relatively flat roof. A green roof not only provides an attractive roofing option but also uses
evapotranspiration to reduce runoff volume, and provides some detention storage. Although
green roofs may reduce some pollutants from the rainwater, they usually are significant sources
of phosphorus due to leaching from the growing media.
Currently, the initial cost of an extensive green roof in the U.S. starts at about $8 per
square foot, which includes materials, preparation work, and installation
(http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/strategies/greenroofs.html). Maintenance involves watering,
trimming, inspection for drainage and leaks and replacement of roof. An extensive green roof has
low lying plants designed to provide maximum groundcover, water retention, erosion resistance,
and transpiration of moisture. Extensive green roofs usually use plants with foliage from 2 to 6
inches in height and from 2 to 4 inches of soil. An intensive green roof is intended to be more of
a natural landscape, installed on a rooftop. Intensive green roofs may use plants with foliage
from 1 to 15 feet tall and may require several feet of soil depth and are therefore not common.
The costs for three types of roofs after 31 years of use are shown in Table 81:
Roof #1: A three-ply, asphalt built-up-roofing system with a price of $9.00 per sq. ft. Average
life expectancy is 10 years.
Roof #2: A modified hot applied roofing system with a price of $10.00 per sq. ft.
Average life expectancy is 20 years.
Roof #3: Two-ply modified bitumen, green roofing system with a price of $12.00 per sq. ft.
Average life expectancy is 40 years.
Table 81. Capital, Maintenance and Life Cycle Costs of Green Roofs
(W.P.Hickman Systems Inc., 2005)
Cost, $
Roof #1
Roof #2
Roof #3
Initial Capital Expense
225,000
250,000
300,000
Capital Expense/Inflation
1,154,595
591,764
30,000
in year 31
replaced 2x replaced 1x original roof
Maintenance Costs/Inflation
26,607
26,607
26,607
in year 31
Life Cycle Costs
359,682
283,939
270,447
in year 31
2.10.6 Bioretention/Rain gardens

Bioretention/rain gardens are landscaped and vegetated filters for stormwater runoff that
are incorporated into the landscaping surrounding a building. Stormwater is directed into a
shallow, landscaped depression. The bedding material contains a high percentage of sand and
smaller amounts of clay, silt and organic material. The recommended organic matter content of
the amended soil should be about 5 to 10% to protect groundwater. Stormwater is allowed to
pool over this soil and infiltrate through the mulch and prepared soil mix. Excess filtered runoff
can be collected in an underdrain or overflow and returned to the storm drain system.
An evaluation of costs and benefits of structural stormwater controls in North Carolina
(2003) presented the cost of construction of rain gardens as a function of area of drainage area as
shown in Equations 2.43 and 2.44,
98
(2.63)
C = 10,162 X 1.088 , in clay soil
(2.64)
where
C = 2,861 X 0.438 , in sandy soil
C = cost, $, and
X = size of watershed, acres
These cost estimates include labor, installation costs, and a 30% overhead rate. The
construction cost does not include the cost of any piping or stormwater conveyance external to
the device. Also not included are land costs.
The North Carolina evaluation also showed that the maintenance and inspection of rain
gardens involve pruning the shrubs and trees twice a year, mowing seasonally, weeding monthly,
remulching 1-2 times over the life time of the device, removing accumulated sediment every 10
to 20 years, and underdrain inspection once a year. These factors were taken into account for
estimating the total 20-year maintenance cost presented in Equation 2.45. This cost estimate is
the same for clayey and sandy soils.
(2.65)
C = 3,437 X 0.152
where
C = cost, $, and
X = size of watershed, acres
2.10.7 Cisterns and Water Storage for Reuse
Water conservation has many urban water benefits, including reducing wastewater flows
and reduced delivery of highly treated and possibly scarce water. A sizeable fraction of the water
needs in many areas can be satisfied by using water of lesser quality, such as stormwater.
However, the stormwater must be stored for later use. Typical beneficial uses of stormwater
include landscape irrigation and toilet flushing. The following is an excerpt of an urban water
reuse analysis using WinSLAMM, with some basic cost information. The site being investigated
was a new cluster of fraternity housing at Birmingham Southern University.
The runoff from the rooftops is estimated to contribute about 30% of the annual runoff
volume for this drainage area. Each building has about 4,000 ft2 of roof area. One approach was
to capture as much of the rainwater as possible, using underground storage tanks. Any overflow
from the storage tanks would then flow into rain gardens to encourage infiltration, with any
excess entering the conventional stormwater drainage system. The storage tanks can be easily
pumped into currently available irrigation tractors, which have 500 gal tanks. The total roof
runoff from the six buildings is expected to be slightly more than 100,000 ft3 (750,000 gal) of
water per year. With a cost of about $1.50 per 100 ft3, this would be valued at about $1,500 per
year. It is expected that the storage tanks would have a useful life of at least 20 years, with a
resultant savings of at least $30,000 over the tank lifetime, excluding future rising costs of water.
One source for plastic underground water storage tanks (Chem-Tainer, New York) lists their tank
cost at about $1,500 for 300 ft3 units.
Table 82 lists the assumed average irrigation water use, in gal per day, for the roof runoff
for each building. This was calculated assuming pumped irrigation near the buildings, with each
building irrigating about acre of surrounding turf. If the tanker tractors were used so water
could be delivered to other locations on campus, the water use would be greater, and the
efficiency of the system would increase, although additional labor and equipment costs would
result.
99
Table 82. Average Water Used from Roof Runoff for Each Building
Irrigation Needs (inches
per month on turf)
Average use for

acre (gal/day)
1
1
1.5
2
3
4
4
4
3
2
1.5
1
28
230
230
340
460
680
910
910
910
680
460
340
230
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Table 83 shows the estimated fraction of the annual roof runoff that would be used for
this irrigation for different storage tank volumes per building (again assuming pumped irrigation
to acre per building):
Table 83. Annual Roof Runoff Used for Irrigation for
Different Storage Tank Volumes
Tankage Volume per
Fraction of Annual Roof
Building (ft3)
Runoff used for Irrigation
1,000
2,000
4,000
8,000
16,000
56%
56
74
90
98
With this irrigation schedule, there is no significant difference between the utilization
rates for 1,000 and 2,000 ft3 of storage tankage per building, and the water usage tops off at about
8,000 ft3 of storage. Again, with the tractor rigs, the utilization could be close to 100% for all
tanks sizes, depending on the schedule for irrigation for other campus areas: larger tanks would
only make the use of the water more convenient and would provide greater reserves during
periods of dry weather. Also, small tanks would overflow more frequently during larger rains.
For this reason, at least 1,000 ft3 of tankage (3 or 4 of the 300 ft3 tanks) per building is
recommended for this installation.
2.11 Education Programs

Public education programs are needed for raising public awareness and therefore creating
support for stormwater management and water conservation programs. It is difficult to quantify
100
actual pollutant reductions associated with educational efforts. However, public attitude can be
gauged to predict how these programs perform. Public education programs include activities like
fertilizer and pesticide management, public involvement in stream restoration and monitoring
projects, storm drain stenciling and overall awareness of aquatic resources. All education
programs aim at reducing pollutant loadings by changing peoples behavior and also to make
people aware and gain support for programs in place to protect water resources. Some unit costs
(1999 dollars) for educational program components (based on two different programs) are
included in the Table 84.
Table 84. Unit Program Costs for Public Education
Programs (US EPA, 1999)
Item
Cost
$1,250-$1,750 per 1000
Public Attitude Survey
households
Flyers
10-25 /flyer
Soil Test Kit*
$10
Paint
25-30 /SD Stencil
Safety Vests for Volunteers $2
Note: * Includes cost of testing, but not sampling
Table 85 provides information on some educational expenditure (a portion of the entire
annual budget) in Seattle with a population of 535,000. The city of Seattle has a relatively
aggressive public education program for wet weather flow issues, including classroom and field
involvement programs.
101
Table 85. 1997 Budget for Some Aspects of the Public Education Costs in Seattle, Washington,
(US EPA, 1999)
Item
Description
Budget ($)
Supplies for
Covers supplies for the Stewardship through
17,500
Volunteers
environmental partnership program
Communications strategy highlighting a newly
Communications
18,000
formed program within the city
Environmental
Transportation costs from schools to field visits
46,500
Education
(105 schools with four trips each)
Education Services/
Fees for student visits to various sites
55,000
Field Trips
Covers the cost of training classroom teachers
Teacher Training
3,400
for the environmental education program
Equipment for classroom education, including
Equipment
38,800
displays, handouts, etc.
Water Interpretive
Staff to provide public information at two creeks
79,300
Specialist: Staff
Water Interpretive
Materials and equipment to support interpretive
Specialist:
12,100
specialist program
Equipment
Youth Conservation
Supports clean-up activities in creeks
210,900
Corps
Table 86 shows the various institutional source controls from the survey conducted by the Water
Resources Committee, American Public Works Association, Southern California Chapter in
1992.
102
Site dependent
Site dependent
Litter Control
Recycling Programs
Develop and Enact Spill

Response Plan
"Pooper Scooper"
Ordinance
Increase number of
trash receptacles.
Household and restaurant

paper, plastics, and
glass.
Household paper, glass,
aluminum, and plastics.
Oil and grease from auto
maintenance.
Reduced pollutant load

to storm drain system.
Reduced potential for

clogging and discharge
Reduction in potential
for clogging and
harmful
discharge.
Site dependent
None
Hazardous chemical,
Prevent pollutants from
harmful chemicals, oil,
entering storm drain.
and grease.
103
None
None
Coliform bacteria and

nitrogen/urea.
Paper, plastics, glass,

food wrappers and
containers.
None
Can reduce improper

disposal of paints,
varnishes, thinners,
pesticides, fertilizers, and
household cleansers, and
chemicals, etc.
Collection and
sorting stations.
Construction
Requirements
Pollutants
Controlled
Storm Protection
Benefit
Prohibits littering and

Storm drain system
prevents litter from
and receiving water
entering storm drains.
Requires animal owners
Storm drain system to clean up and properly
and receiving water dispose of animal
wastes.
Not Applicable
Public Education
(Billing Inserts, News
Releases, Radio Public
Service Announcements,
School Programs and
Pamphlets)
"No Littering" Ordinance
Area of
Benefit
Type of
Practice
Table 86. Costs of Institutional Source Controls (APWA, 1992)
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$200,000/year
$20 per trash

receptacle.
$200,000/year
Capital Cost
Not Available
Potential to be
self-supporting
by fines.
Potential to be
self-supporting
by fines.
$350,000 per
300,000 city
population.
$16/acre/year
$257,000/year
O&M Cost
Site dependent
Clean-Up Vacant Lots
Identify, Locate and

Prohibit Illegal or Illicit
Discharge to Strom drain
system
Area-wide
Prohibit Illegal and Illicit

Connections and
Storm drain system
and receiving water
dumping into Storm
Drain System
Site dependent
Area of
Benefit
Require Tow Truck

Drivers to Clean Up
Chemical Spills from
Accident Sites.
Type of
Practice
Hazardous and/or
harmful chemicals, wind
blown for water borne
debris.
Prevent debris from

accumulating on lot.
Prevent site from
appearing as a "dump"
for others to use for
disposal. Eliminate
sources of hazardous
waste.
Halt hazardous and

harmful discharges,
whether intentional
or negligent.
None
None
None
Construction
Requirements
104
Sewage from cross

connections, oil, grease,
direct disposal of pesticides
and fertilizers,
contaminated water, paint,
Monitor storm
varnish, solvents, water
drain system for
from site dewatering,
flows and water
swimming, pool and spa
quality
water, flushing water from
radiators and cooling
systems, and hazardous or
harmful chemicals.
Coliform bacteria, nitrogen,

Reduces pollutant load
contaminants, and toxic
entering storm drains.
or harmful chemicals
Hazardous chemical,
harmful chemicals, oil,
and grease.
Pollutants
Controlled
Prevent hazardous or
harmful pollutants
from entering storm
drain.
Storm Protection
Benefit
Table 86 Continued.
O&M Cost
$2/acre
(Assumes 1
monitor every 5
square mile.)
$2/acre
Not Applicable
$50/acre/year
(includes TV
inspection of
storm drains)
Self-supporting
by fines to
illegal/illicit
dischargers.
Self-supporting
by City fines to
lot owners.
Self-supporting
by driver cleanNot Applicable
up fees. Not
available.
Capital Cost
Area of
Benefit
Storm Protection
Benefit
Restrict paving and use of

non-porous cover materials
in recharge areas.
Recharge area site
Promotes infiltration to
groundwater and
reduces runoff volume
and velocity. Filters
pollutants
Require proper storage, use

and disposal of fertilizers,
Site dependent (city,
pesticides, solvents, paints
Reduce pollutant load
state, or country
and varnishes and other
to storm system
wide)
household chemicals (oil,
grease and antifreeze, etc)
Type of
Practice
105
Not applicable
Household hazardous
materials
Pollutants
Controlled
Table 86 Continued.
O&M Cost
None
Not applicable Not available
Capital Cost
Establishment of
vegetation or use of
Not available
recharge/infiltration
materials
None
Construction
Requirements
2.13 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the capital, operation, and maintenance costs for various
stormwater control practices in the form of tables and equations. The costs for educational
programs were presented in Section 2.11. Sections 2.12.2, 2.12.3, 2.12.4 and 2.12.5 presented the
capital, operation, and maintenance costs for wet detention ponds, permeable pavement, grass
swales and biofiltration devices, respectively of varying sizes. The cost data presented in the
form of tables were transformed into equations and integrated into WinSLAMM. However, the
costs presented in this chapter from various sources represented the regional costs for these
controls for a particular year. Cost indices published by ENR for 20 cities within the US were
integrated into WinSLAMM to convert the regional cost data to a particular location and year.
Tables 2 and 3 of Section 2.3.1 show the capital cost ($/LF) for corrugated metal pipes
and reinforced concrete pipes for different diameters. Sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.6 and
2.3.7 presented the capital costs of trench excavation, bedding, backfill, manhole, inlets, and
curbs and gutters, respectively. The costs for these stormwater conveyance system components
obtained from RS Means Building Construction Costs (2006) were transformed into equations.
These equations were then used to develop an Excel spreadsheet model to estimate the cost of
conventional stormwater drainage system. The transformed equations along with example
calculations are presented in the following Chapter.
106
Chapter III
Cost Estimation Spreadsheet Model - Conventional Stormwater Conveyance System
3.1 Introduction
The costs of the conventional stormwater drainage system need to be known for
comparison to the costs associated with replacement parts of the system with alternatives that
also provide water quality benefits. As noted in Chapter II, cost equations have been integrated
into WinSLAMM to enable direct calculations of the different water quality controls. This
chapter describes a spreadsheet model that was developed as part of this research that calculates
the costs associated with the conventional drainage system. These data can then be used in a
decision analysis framework to guide in the selection of the best stormwater management system
for an area, considering pollutant discharges and flow conditions, along with capital and O&M
costs.
Typical stormwater conveyance systems consist of the curb and gutter, drain inlets, and
the pipe network system, along with ancillary components such as manholes. Storm sewer
systems follow the alignment of the roadway, increasing in size as necessary to accept the flow
from a series of inlets. The stormwater conveyance system functions primarily by collecting and
conveying the surface runoff to a predetermined outlet to prevent flooding during storms. This
chapter presents the working of the Excel spreadsheet model developed to estimate the costs
involved in the construction of a conventional stormwater conveyance system. Also presented
are equations incorporated into the spreadsheet model developed from unit cost data for
stormwater conveyance system component costs such as pipes, excavation trenches, bedding,
backfill, inlets, manholes and curb and gutter available in RS Means Building Construction Cost
Data, 2006. Examples calculations to illustrate the cost calculations by the spreadsheet model to
estimate the costs of individual components of the stormwater conveyance system are shown at
the end of each section.
3.2 Cost Estimation Model

An Excel spreadsheet model was developed to estimate the total cost of a conventional
stormwater conveyance system. The spreadsheet model includes estimates for the cost of pipe,
trench excavation, bedding, backfill, compaction, catchbasin inlets, curbs and gutters, and
manholes. Figure 23 shows a conceptual representation of the components of the conveyance
system, the variables for these components, and the costs of the components estimated using the
variables. The sum of the individual component costs gives the total capital cost of the
conventional stormwater conveyance system.
107
Figure 23. Stormwater Conveyance System Components

The component variables are entered into the Excel spreadsheet model either through drop-down
menus or through direct cell entry. The following input variables are selected form the dropdown menu:
Pipe diameter in inches,
Selection of pipe material (reinforced concrete or corrugated metal),
Trench slope,
Type of backhoe size for excavation,
Bedding material,
Backhoe size for backfill,
Haul distance for backfill material,
Internal riser diameter of manhole in feet,
Type of manhole,
Width of curb and gutter in inches and
City and year selection for ENR cost index
In addition, the following variables are entered directly into selected non shaded cells on
the spreadsheet (the yellow cells are locked to prevent changing the embedded equations which
would affect the internal calculations):
Bedding depth in inches,
Backfill depth above pipe crown in inches,
Length of selected pipe in feet,
Invert depth of inlet in feet,
108
Number of inlets,
Depth of manhole in feet,
Number of manholes,
Length of curb in feet,
Land cost in US dollars,
Maintenance cost in US dollars,
Interest rate of debt capital in %,
Financial period in years of project,
Expected life of project in years,
Annual maintenance cost for 1st year in US dollars and
Anticipated inflation during life of project in %
Figure 24 shows a cross-sectional view of the stormwater conveyance system. Seen in the
figure are the following variables: trench top and bottom width, trench depth, bedding depth,
backfill depth and pipe diameter.
Figure 24. Cross Section View of Stormwater Conveyance System Components

Figure 25 shows the input screen of the spreadsheet model with the various input
parameters for each component.
109
110
Figure 25. Portion of the Input Screen of Spreadsheet Model
The spreadsheet can calculate the total costs for up to 100 different segments of pipe. The
data used in the spreadsheet model were obtained from RS Means Building Construction Cost
Data (2006). These values are available in the form of look-up tables. However, to incorporate
the data into the spreadsheet model, equations were fitted to this data to calculate the cost with
one or more of the parameters as the variable. The transformed equations and the graphs are
presented for each section. These values and tables are repeated in this section from Chapter II to
show how data was used in the model. Figure 26 shows a flowchart representing the steps
involved in the spreadsheet model to estimate the costs involved in the construction of a
stormwater conveyance system.
111
Figure 26. Flowsheet Representation of Spreadsheet Model
112
Figure 26 Continued.
113
3.2.1 Pipe Costs

The available choice of pipe diameters (inches) in the spreadsheet for Corrugated Metal
Pipe (CMP) are 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, 60, and 72 inches and for Reinforced Concrete
Pipe (RCP) are 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 36, 42, 48, 60, 72, 84, and 96 inches. The pipe costs
were calculated as a function of pipe diameter, pipe material and total length of pipe used.
Figures 27 and 28 show the pipe parameter input cells.
Figure 27. Pipe Material Input Cells
Figure 28. Pipe Diameter Input Cells

Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter II show the cost of RCP and CMP pipe per linear foot. Figure
29 shows the cost of stormwater conveyance pipelines considering pipe diameter and type (not
depth). The magnitudes of the possible errors are also shown in the figure when these equations
are fitted to published R.S. Means cost estimating values. The labor costs are the average rates
for 30 major U.S. cities. Excavation, backfill and bedding costs are discussed in the next
subsections and are in addition to these costs.
114
600
Crcp= 0.0634D - 0.6342D + 30.896

500
Cost, $/LF
400
CMP RS Means
300
RCP RS Means
Poly. (RCP RS Means)
Poly. (CMP RS Means)
200
Ccmp = 0.0372D2 + 0.3267D + 15.926
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Diameter, in.
Figure 29. Stormwater Conveyance Pipe Costs for Different Diameter

A second-order polynomial equation was fitted to the data. The equation below is for
corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), using RS Means data:
(3.1)
Ccmp = 0.0372D 2 + 0.3267 D + 15.926 , for CMP
(3.2)
where
Crcp = 0.0634D 2 0.634 D + 30.896 ,
for RCP
C = construction cost, $/ft, and

D = pipe diameter, in.
These equations were incorporated into the spreadsheet model. The diameter and the pipe
material are chosen from the drop-down menu in the spreadsheet model to calculate the cost of
the pipe in dollars per linear foot. When the total length of the desired pipe is entered, the
spreadsheet calculates the cost in U.S. dollars for that segment of the chosen pipe material and
diameter.
Example Calculation:
Pipe material = Reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
Pipe diameter = 24 in.
Length of chosen pipe = 200 ft.
Model estimate:
Cost of RCP per linear foot = 0.0634D 2 0.634 D + 30.896
= (0.0634 * 242) - (0.634 * 24) + 30.896
= $ 52.11 per linear foot
Total cost of pipe = Length of pipe * $/LF
= 200 * 52.11
= $ 15,632
115
3.2.2 Excavation Trench Cost

The bottom width of the trench is calculated based on pipe diameter. The Means
Estimating Handbook gives trench bottom widths for various outside diameters of buried pipes
(Table 87).
Table 87. Trench Bottom Width for Outside Diameters
of Buried Pipes (RS Means Company, 1990)
Outside Diameter,
Trench Bottom Width,
(in.)
(ft.)
24
4.1
30
4.9
36
5.6
42
6.3
48
7.0
60
8.5
72
10.0
84
11.4
When this data is plotted on a graph (Figure 30) a straight line is fitted to this data and relates
trench bottom width and pipe diameter, as shown in Equation 3.3.
160
140
W = 1.4585D + 14.505
trench bottom width, in
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
diameter, in
Figure 30. Trench Bottom Widths for Different Pipe Diameters

The pipe outside diameter (inches) and trench bottom width are related by the following
equation:
116
90
(3.3)
where
W = 1.4585 D + 14.505
W = trench bottom width, in., and

D = pipe outside diameter, in.,
This equation was then used in the cost spreadsheet model to estimate the trench bottom
width from the pipe diameter selected for the segment. The equation was also used to estimate
the trench bottom widths for other pipe diameters not shown in the Table 86.
Trench excavation costs for different trench depths and backhoe sizes are shown in Table
5. Trench side slope options available in the spreadsheet model are 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2. Based on
the users choice of trench slope and the total trench depth, the top width of the trench is
calculated by the spreadsheet. The total depth of the trench is calculated as the summation of
pipe diameter selected from the drop down menu, the bedding depth in inches, and backfill depth
in inches (height from crown of the pipe to the top of the trench), as shown in Figure 31. These
values are entered manually depending on conditions at the location of the trench.
Figure 31. Transverse View of Excavation Trench Showing Components

The volume of the trench is calculated as the product of the area of the cross-section
trapezoid and the total length of the trench. Also, the choice of different backhoe sizes for
different trench depths are available from the drop-down menu and, depending on the total
volume of trench, the trench excavation cost is calculated. Figure 32 shows the rows in the
spreadsheet model where the trench data is entered.
117
Figure 32. Trench Parameter Input Values

RS Means gives the cost of trench excavation in dollars per cubic yard based on depth of trench
in feet and backhoes size in cubic yard.
Example calculation:
Diameter of pipe = 24 in.
Pipe material = Corrugated Metal Pipe
Selected trench slope (H/V) = 1
Bedding depth = 12 in.
Backfill depth = 36 in.
Model estimates:
Total trench depth = pipe diameter + bedding depth + backfill depth
= 24 + 12 + 36
= 6 ft.
Bottom width of trench, W = 1.4585 D + 14.505
= (1.4585 * 24) + 14.505
= 4.1 ft.
The trench top width for a slope of 1:1, trench depth of 72 inches and bottom width of 49.5
inches = 49.5 + 72 + 72 = 193.5 inches
The volume of the trench was calculated using the trapezoid formula,
1
V = * H * (B1 + B2 ) * L
(3.4)
2
where
V = volume of trench, cu.in.,
H = depth of trench, in.,
B1 = bottom width of trench, in.,
B2 = top width of trench, in., and
L = length of trench for considered pipe segment, in.
Volume of the trench using trapezoid formula = [0.5 * 72 * (49.5 + 193.5)] * (200*12)
= 20,995,200 cu.in.
= 441 CY
The model gives different choices of backhoe sizes based on total depth of trench. From the RS
Means cost data, for a trench depth of 6 feet, the available choice of backhoe sizes in the
spreadsheet model are CY tractor/backhoe, 5/8 CY hydraulic backhoe and CY hydraulic
backhoe. For a 5/8 CY hydraulic backhoe, the trench excavation cost is 4.94 $/CY.
Total cost of digging this trench = 441 CY * 4.94 $/CY = $ 2,178
118
3.2.3 Bedding Cost

Crushed or screened bank run gravel, crushed stone to , and sand, gravel or bank
are the materials available for the bedding options in the model. Bedding costs in $/LCY are
shown in Table 6 (RS Means, 2006) in Chapter II. The user enters the desired bedding depth,
which is used to calculate the bedding volume. The cost of the bedding is then calculated based
on the bedding material chosen. Row 6 of the spreadsheet accepts the bedding depth in inches
and row 12 has the dropdown to enter bedding material as shown in Figure 33.
Figure 33. Bedding Parameter Input Cells
Depth of bedding = 12 in.
Slope of trench = 1:1
Trench bottom width = 49.5 in.
Bedding material = crushed stone in. to in.
Model Estimates:
The top width of the bedding is calculated using side slope of the trench and bottom width.
Top width of bedding = 49.5 + 12 + 12 = 73.5 in.
The volume of bedding is calculated as the volume of the trapezoid.
Volume of bedding = [0.5 * 12 * (49.5 + 73.5)] * 200 * 12
= 535,610.88 cu.in.
= 37.2 CY
Cost of bedding using crushed stone in. to in. = 39.5 $/CY
Cost of bedding = 37.2 * 39.5 = $ 1,469
3.2.4 Backfill Cost
RS Means (2006) presents the backfill cost in dollars per cubic yard as a function of
backhoe size and haul distance for the backfill material. The volume of the backfill required is
calculated in the spreadsheet model by subtracting the volume occupied by the pipe and the
bedding volume from the trench volume. The volume calculations for the bedding and trench are
shown in the previous sections. The data shown in Table 7 (SEWRPC, 2006) in Chapter II, along
with the backfill depth (inches) is used in the spreadsheet to calculate the total cost of backfill.
Figure 34 shows the input screen to enter these parameters.
119
Figure 34. Backfill Data Input Cells

Volume of trench = 441 CY
Volume of bedding = 37.2 CY
Backhoe size for trench backfill = 2-1/4 CY bucket
Haul distance = 100 feet haul
Model Estimate:
Volume of pipe =
D 2
4
= 3.14 * 22 * 0.25 * 200

= 23.24 CY
Volume of backfill = Trench volume (Bedding Volume + Pipe Volume)
= 441 (37.2 + 23.24)
= 380 CY
Cost of backfill per linear cubic yard = 2.36 $/LCY
Cost of backfill = 2.36 * 380 = $ 898
3.2.5 Inlet and Catchbasin Costs
Stormwater inlets intercept stormwater on the ground surface or in a roadway gutter and
convey it to the storm sewer piping system. An inlet consists of a grating at the surface and a
subsurface box that supports the inlet grating and connects to the subsurface piping system.
Figure 35 shows a diagrammatic representation of a stormwater inlet with a small sump, making
it a catchbasin (the sump depth should be about 3 ft deep to be an effective sediment trap).
Without this sump, this would be termed a standard box inlet.
120
Figure 35. Stormwater Catchbasin Inlet

The costs for unit precast inlets for different inside diameters and depths are provided in
RS Means Building Construction Cost Data (Table 12 in Chapter II); the cost does not include
the cost of footing, excavation, backfill, frame, and grating cover. This data is plotted on Figures
36, 37 and 38 and fitted equations for 4, 5 and 6 feet internal diameters, as shown by Equations
3.5, 3.6 and 3.7, respectively.
121
4000
3500
3000
C = 5.2455H2 + 159.51H + 457.5
Cost, $/unit
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
12
14
16
14
16
Depth, ft.
Figure 36. Capital Cost for Catchbasin Inlet of 4 ft. ID

4500
4000
C = 3.2188H2 + 223.39H + 331.04
3500
Cost, $/unit
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
12
Depth, ft.
122
7000
6000
C = 6.875H2 + 305.82H + 653.86
Cost, $/unit
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
12
Depth, ft.

(3.5)
Ci ,4 = 5.2455H 2 + 159.51H + 457.5 , for 4 ft inside diameter
(3.6)
C i,5 = 3.2188H 2 + 223.39H + 331.04 , for 5 ft. inside diameter
(3.7)
where
C i,6 = 6.875H 2 + 305.82H + 653.86 , for 6 ft. inside diameter
Cmh = cost of manhole, $, and

H = depth of manhole, ft
Figure 39 shows the data input cells in the model.
Figure 39. Inlet and Manholes Input Cells

Internal diameter = 5 ft.
Depth of inlet = 7 ft.
Number of inlets = 3
123
14
16
The model displays the following error message in a pop-up window if a depth lesser than depth
of trench is entered.
Error! Depth of inlet must be greater than trench depth. A screenshot of the error display
screen is shown in Figure 40.
124
125
Figure 40. Error Display if Inputted Inlet Depth is Smaller than Trench Depth
Model Estimate:
Cost per inlet = 3.2188H 2 + 223.39H + 331.04
= (3.2188 * 72) + (223.39 * 7) + 331.04
= $ 2,052
Cost of 3 inlets = 3 * 2,052
= $ 6,157
3.2.6 Manhole Cost
Like inlets, manholes provide access to the sewer system for routine inspection and
maintenance. Manholes are usually installed at places of change in horizontal pipe direction or
pipe slope, where several pipes join, or when pipe size changes. Manholes should be installed to
provide regular access intervals along straight sections of sewer. Illustration of a precast
manholes is shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Cross Section View of Manhole

RS Means Building Construction Cost Data (2006) provides manhole costs per unit as a
function of standard internal riser diameter and the invert depth (Table 8 in Chapter II). The cost
does not include the cost of footing, excavation, backfill, frame and cover. RS Means gives the
cost of three types of manholes: brick manholes of 4 feet internal diameter, concrete blocks
manhole of 4 feet internal diameter and concrete cast in place manhole of 4 ft. 4 ft., and 8
126
inches thick. Figures 42, 43 and 44 illustrate the construction costs of the manholes plotted
against their depths, and as shown in Equations 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10.
4500
4000
C = 13.75D2 + 117.5D + 479
3500
Cost, $/unit
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
Depth, ft.
Figure 42. Capital Cost of 4 ft. ID Brick Manhole
127
12
14
3000
2500
2
C = -0.1071D + 206.21D + 16.8
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
12
14
Depth, ft.
Figure 43. Capital Cost of 4 ft. ID Concrete Manhole
6000
5000
C = 2.3214D2 + 440.36D - 39
4000
Cost, $/unit
Cost, $/unit
2000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
12
14
Depth, ft.
Figure 44. Capital Cost of 4 ft. * 4 ft., 8 in. Thick Concrete Cast-in-place Manhole
128
For brick manhole 4 ft. inside diameter,

C mh,brick = 13.75D 2 + 117.5D + 479
For concrete blocks manhole (radial) for 4 ft. inside diameter,

C mh,concrete = 0.1071D 2 + 206.21D + 16.8
For concrete, cast in place manhole, 4 ft. 4 ft., 8 in. thick

C mh,cast in place = 2.321D 2 + 440.36 D 39
where
Cmh = cost of manhole, $, and
D = depth of manhole, ft
Figure 45 shows the manhole parameter input cells on the spreadsheet model.
Figure 45. Manhole/Junction Box Input Cells

Type of manhole = brick, 4 I.D.
Depth of manhole = 7 ft.
Number of manholes with this condition = 5
The spreadsheet does not allow a manhole depth lesser than the trench depth. In case a lesser
depth is inputted, the model gives an error message.
Model Estimate:
Cost per manhole = (13.75 * 72) + (117.5 * 7) + 479
= $ 1,975
Cost of 5 manholes = 5 * 1,975
= $ 9,876
3.2.7 Manhole Grating Cover
Cast iron manhole frame and cover costs for different diameters are provided in RS
Means (Table 9 in Chapter II). The spreadsheet model calculates the total cost of the manhole
depending on the choice of type and diameter. Figure 46 shows the input screen of the
spreadsheet model to choose the manhole grating type and its corresponding diameter.
Figure 46. Manhole Grating Cover Selection Cells

From the above line 25 on the spreadsheet model; watertight manholes of 24 inch diameter. The
spreadsheet model estimates the capital cost as follows:
129
Cost of manhole grating cover = 25 units * 595 $/unit

= $ 14,875
3.2.8 Curbs and Gutters
Figure 47 is a section of curb and gutter placed alongside a road providing a side-street
channel to convey water to the storm drainage inlets.
Figure 47. Illustration of Curb and Gutter

Curb and gutter costs are provided in RS Means for wood forms, steel forms, machine
formed and precast 6 in. 18 in. gutters for two different widths and straight and radial patterns
for 6 inch high curbs and 6 inch thick gutters (Table 13 in Chapter II). The spreadsheet model
calculates the costs of curb and gutter for the selected type of form, width and geometry. Figure
48 shows the input screen for curbs and gutters in the spreadsheet model.
Figure 48. Curb and Gutter Input Cells

For a curb and gutter constructed with steel forms, 30 inches wide, that is straight for 150 feet in
length, and having a 50 feet radius alignment, the cost is estimated as follows:
Cost of curb and gutter = (150 * 11.85) + (50 * 16.7)
= $ 2,612
3.3 Total Drainage System Cost

The costs for up to 100 pipe segment categories, plus the manhole costs, are summed in
the spreadsheet. This total cost is then converted to current costs based on the financing period
and interest rate selected. The ENR construction cost indices from 1976 through 2006 are also
incorporated into the spreadsheet for 20 different cities in the US. The RS Means cost indices are
also incorporated into the spreadsheet for these 20 cities. The model estimates the total capital
cost, present value of all costs, and annualized value of all costs during the financing period.
The land cost and the maintenance cost need to be directly entered into the spreadsheet in
their respective cells. The city and the year selection can be made from the drop-down menus.
The model gives the city cost index multiplier and the multiplication factor using the RS Means
values that can be multiplied with the final cost estimates. Figure 49 shows the output screen of
the spreadsheet model displaying the individual component costs and the total costs involved in
the construction of the conventional stormwater conveyance system.
130
131
Figure 49. Estimated Costs by Spreadsheet Model
Interest rate on debt capital = 4%
Project life = 20 years
Capital cost of project = $ 645,600
Land cost = $ 0
Annual maintenance cost = $ 4,000/year
Present value of annual amount =
(1 + i )N 1
i (1 + i )N
Present value of annual amount (or) present value multiplier =
(1 + 0.04)20 1
0.04(1 + 0.04)20
= 12.46
Present value of all costs = [Capital cost of project + land cost of project + present value of the
annual maintenance and operation cost] * city cost index multiplier
= [$645,600 + $0 + (12.46 * $4,000)] * 0.70
= $ 486,800
i (1 + i )
Annual value of present amount =
(1 + i )N 1
Annual value of present amount (or) annual value multiplier =
0.04(1 + 0.04)
20
(1 + 0.04)20 1
= 0.0802
Annualized value of all costs during the finance period = [Annualized value of (capital cost of
project + land cost of project) + annual maintenance and operation cost] * city cost index
multiplier
= [0.0802 * ($645,600 + $0) + $4,000] * 0.70
= $ 39,000 per year
132
Chapter IV
Example Application of Spreadsheet for Calculating Traditional
Drainage System Costs
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is an example showing the use of the spreadsheet model to calculate the
conventional storm drainage costs associated with a 250 acre industrial site in Huntsville,
Alabama. The design tasks for calculating the cost of conventional stormwater conveyance are
the following:
1. Determine the quantity of stormwater the peak flow resulting from a storm of a certain
return period for the Huntsville Industrial Park (the level of service).
2. Establish a sewer capacity to convey the design peak flow of stormwater.
3. Enter the calculated pipe diameters, lengths, burial depths, plus inlet and manhole
characteristics into the spreadsheet model to calculate the costs involved with the entire
network.
The IDF curves were constructed for Huntsville from the following Hydro-35 graphs
published by the National Weather Service: 2-year 5-minute precipitation, 2-year 15-minute
precipitation, 2-year 50-minute precipitation, 100-year 5-minute precipitation, 100-year 15minute precipitation, 100-year 60-minute precipitation. Table 88 shows the intensity (in/hr) of
rainfall for different durations (minutes). Figure 50 shows the corresponding intensity duration
frequency curves for Huntsville, AL.
Table 88. IDF Curve Values for Huntsville, Alabama
Intensity, (in/hr)
Frequency
5
10
15
30
60
2
5.76
4.65
3.92
2.69
1.72
5
6.63
5.47
4.64
3.29
2.15
10
7.30
6.08
5.18
3.72
2.45
25
8.31
6.98
5.97
4.34
2.88
50
9.11
7.69
6.58
4.83
3.22
100
9.90
8.40
7.20
5.32
3.55
133
12
10
100 yr
50 yr
25 yr
Intensity, in/hr
10 yr
5 yr
2 yr
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Duration, min.
Figure 50. IDF Curves for Huntsville, Alabama

The Rational method was used to estimate the design discharges Q in cubic feet per
second, obtained by the following equation,
Q = CIA
(4.1)
where
C = coefficient of runoff,
I = average intensity of rainfall in inches per hour from the Huntsville IDF curve for a
given storm frequency and the duration equal to time of concentration, and
A = drainage area in acres.
4.2 Site Characteristics
The site consisted of 50 plots each with each having areas varying between 1.86 to 3.97
acres, plus a large undeveloped area which did not drain to the storm drainage system. Each of
these plots were 70% impervious and had a sandy-loam soil. An inlet time of concentration of 5
minutes was determined for each of the plots. The site was divided into four subareas depending
on the direction of the flow based on ground slope and outlet locations. Subareas A and B
drained into Pond 1, subarea C drains into Pond 2 and Subarea D drains into Outlet 1. Figure 51
is a map of the industrial site showing the individual plots, subareas, the direction of flow of
stormwater in the pipes, inlet locations and the outlets.
134
135
Figure 51. Map of the Industrial Site in Huntsville, Alabama Showing the Direction of Flow and Inlet Locations
4.3 Design Computations

The following steps were followed to design the stormwater conveyance system for the site.
1. The design was started at the upper end of the storm sewer system and proceeded
downstream following the direction and pathway of the road.
2. Inlets were located at every 300 feet on one or either side of the road depending on the
direction towards which the plots drained.
3. Pipes were laid from roadside inlet to inlet and considered separate segments.
4. The total drainage area contributing to each inlet was first calculated.
5. The inlet time of concentration, Tc, of 5 minutes was determined for each of the plots
based on the flow path lengths, slopes, and surface covers. The actual Tc values were less
than 5 minutes, but drainage design methods and the IDF curves assume a 5 minute
minimum Tc value. The total time of concentration for each intercept point including the
sewer flow time in the upstream pipes that had been already designed and was used to
calculate the intensity from the IDF curves.
6. The peak flow resulting from the design storm including the flow in the upstream section
was calculated using the Rational method.
7. The natural ground slope was assumed as the underlying pipe slopes. The pipe sizes
necessary to carry the peak flows were then estimated using the slope of surface vs. flow
graph.
8. For the estimated diameter and the slope, the flow rate for full pipe was used to calculate
the actual Q/Qf values. This was then used to estimate the V/Vf values.
9. The desired velocity in each pipe section was between a minimum velocity of 3 fps to
minimize deposition of grit, and a maximum velocity of 15 fps. The slopes were adjusted
to result in acceptable flow ranges.
10. With the lengths for the pipe downstream (from inlet to inlet) and velocity calculated, the
time of concentration and peak flow at next pipe segment down slope was determined.
11. Manholes were then provided at locations of change in diameters of pipes and at
intersections, as needed.
For an industrial site with 70% imperviousness and sandy-loam soil the following values
of runoff coefficients were used: C = 0.9 for impervious surface and C = 0.1 for pervious
surface. The cumulative runoff coefficient for each plot was calculated using the formula,
(4.2)
C=
( A * C )
A
i
Tables 89 to 93 present the estimated pipe diameters and the hydrologic calculations for the four
different subareas.
136
10.65
14.73
A, 3
A, 4
36.85
43.49
6.32
8.4
Inlet
32.88
Area(ac.)
Served by
inlet
2.05
26.62
0.66
16.33
20.62
16.33
0.66
13.88
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
10.07
0.66
6.03
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
Inlet
4.05
A,1
Area(ac.)
served by
inlet
2.01
Area(ac.)
Served by
Inlet
Inlet
6.09
5.54
Tc
(min)
9.73
9.38
9.04
8.67
8.33
7.91
7.37
6.81
6.31
5.75
Tc
5.62
5.28
Tc
7.95
8.17
8.39
I (in/hr)
6.91
6.99
7.08
7.17
7.26
7.37
7.53
7.71
7.88
8.08
8.39
I (in/hr)
8.13
8.27
8.39
I (in/hr)
1.5
2.0
Slope
(%)
42
33
21
Calculated
diameter (in.)
42
36
21
Chosen
diamete
r (in.)
130
99
32
Qf
(cfs)
0.67
0.65
0.77
Q/Qf
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.83
0.83
0.83
Slope
(%)
60
54
54
48
42
42
42
42
36
30
21
Calculated
diameter (in)
60
60
60
48
42
42
42
42
36
30
Chosen
diameter
(in.)
21
240
265
280
150
130
103
105
101
63
39
14.5
Qf
(cfs)
0.83
0.64
0.55
0.84
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.70
0.83
0.82
0.77
Q/Qf
44.10
34.06
11.36
Q
(cfs)
0.8
0.8
Slope
(%)
33
30
Calculated
diameter
(in.)
21
137
36
36
Chosen
Diameter
(in.)
21
70
62
22
Qf
(cfs)
0.63
0.55
0.52
Q/Qf
Table 91. Diameter Calculations for Subarea C1
198.42
170.11
153.58
125.97
98.78
79.47
81.15
70.60
52.35
32.17
11.13
Q
(cfs)
Table 90. Diameter Calculations for Subarea B
86.99
63.96
24.71
Q
(cfs)
Table 89. Diameter Calculations for Subarea A
7.07
7.07
2.40
Af
(sq.ft)
19.63
19.63
19.63
12.56
9.62
9.62
9.62
9.62
7.07
4.91
2.40
Af
(sq.ft)
9.62
7.07
2.40
Af
(sq.ft)
9.91
8.78
9.15
Vf
(fps)
12.23
13.50
14.27
11.94
13.52
10.71
10.92
10.50
8.92
7.95
6.03
Vf
(fps)
13.52
14.01
13.31
Vf
(fps)
1.05
1.025
1.02
V/Vf
1.13
1.06
1.02
1.13
1.1
1.11
1.11
1.07
1.125
1.12
1.11
V/Vf
1.07
1.06
1.1
V/Vf
10.40
9.00
9.33
V
(fps)
13.82
14.31
14.55
13.50
14.87
11.89
12.12
11.24
10.03
8.90
6.69
V
(fps)
14.47
14.85
14.64
V
(fps)
100
300
300
L
(ft.)
390
300
300
300
300
300
390
383
300
300
300
L
(ft.)
300
300
300
L
(ft.)
0.16
0.56
0.54
Tt
(mins)
0.47
0.35
0.34
0.37
0.34
0.42
0.54
0.57
0.50
0.56
0.75
Tt
(mins)
0.35
0.34
0.34
Tt
(mins)
7.5
12.3
12.4
17.32
26.69
29.03
Inlet
2.12
Area(ac.)
served by
inlet
7.75
Area(ac.)
Served by
inlet
Inlet
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
6.72
6.35
5.84
5.48
Tc
(min)
6.15
5.74
Tc
(min)
7.74
7.86
8.05
8.19
8.39
I (in/hr)
7.93
8.09
8.39
I (in/hr)
2.4
1.6
0.8
Slope
(%)
30
30
21
Calculated
Diameter
(in.)
30
30
21
Chosen
Diameter
(in.)
66
55
14.5
Qf
(cfs)
0.98
0.73
0.81
Q/Qf
148.24
138.49
91.98
67.02
42.93
Q
(cfs)
0.5
1.7
Slope
(%)
48
48
48
33
Calculated
Diameter
(in.)
33
138
48
48
48
36
Chosen
Diameter
(in.)
36
155
150
110
90
70
Qf
(cfs)
0.96
0.92
0.84
0.74
0.61
Q/Qf
Table 93. Diameter Calculations for Subarea D
64.39
40.03
11.74
Q
(cfs)
Table 92. Diameter Calculations for Subarea C2
12.56
12.56
12.56
7.07
7.07
Af
(sq.ft)
4.91
4.91
2.40
Af
(sq.ft)
12.34
11.94
8.76
12.74
9.91
Vf
(fps)
13.45
11.21
6.03
Vf
(fps)
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.08
1.05
V/Vf
1.15
1.08
1.12
V/Vf
14.07
13.61
9.90
13.76
10.40
V
(fps)
15.47
12.11
6.76
V
(fps)
200
300
300
300
300
L
(ft.)
205
300
300
L
(ft.)
0.24
0.37
0.51
0.36
0.48
Tt
(mins.)
0.22
0.41
0.74
Tt
(mins.)
4.4 Cost Estimation Using Spreadsheet Model

A total of 25 pipe segment categories were obtained for this site. The estimated pipe
diameters, the desired pipe material, bedding depth, backfill depth, inlet, manhole dimensions
and other input variables were entered into the spreadsheet either manually or selected form
drop-down menus.
All pipes were assumed to be reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) and the calculated
diameters ranged from 21 inches to 60 inches. The yard inlets were assumed to be reinforced
concrete pipes with a diameter of 21 inches and about 150 feet long for each plot. Each of these
plots were fitted with two yard inlets to convey the runoff from the plot to the inlets. The total
length of the yard inlets for the 50 plots was calculated to be 15,000 ft. A bedding depth of 1 feet
and a backfill depth of 3 feet over the crowns of he pipes was assumed at all locations along the
length of the pipe. Based on the estimate of the total trench depth, the model determined a
selection of backhoe sizes for trench excavations for different depths. For trench depths between
4 feet and 6 feet, a cubic yard tractor/backhoe was selected and for trench depths between 6
feet and 10 feet, a cubic yard backhoe was selected. Crushed or screened bank run gravel was
used as the bedding material, a 1 CY bucket was selected as the backhoe size for bedding and a
minimum haul distance of bedding material was assumed.
Inlets were designed with invert depths 3 feet deeper than trench depths and with an
inside diameter of 4 feet. A total of 42 inlets were located in the site. Manholes depths were also
designed at depths at least 1 foot greater than the trench depth. A total of 25 manholes were
located at the site in the middle of the road joining two inlets on either side, at places of change
in diameter and at intersections.
The total length of curb and gutter was calculated as twice the length of the pipe length.
The total length was estimated as 14,736 feet. But, 2,000 feet of this curb run along curves of the
road and require radial forms. The curb and gutter was designed with steel forms with 6 in. 6
in. curbs and 24 inch wide gutter.
Yard drains are used to drain runoff from areas near buildings directly to the main
pipeline, without surface flows to the gutters. As an example, yard drains of 21 inches in
diameter made of reinforced concrete pipe, with each plot having two yard drains were used in
this example. Table 94 summarizes the input data used in the spreadsheet model.
139
Table 94. Summary of Input Data Used in the Spreadsheet Model

Pipe
Pipe material
Total length of pipe
Estimated pipe diameters
Trench
Trench Slope
Bedding
Bedding depth
Bedding material
Backhoe size for bedding
Bedding material haul distance
Backfill
Backfill depth
Backhoe selection
Inlets
Number of inlets
Depth of inlets
Manholes
Number of manholes
Depth of manhole
Number of manhole grates
Type
Curb and gutter
Total length of curb and gutter
Curb and gutter dimensions
Yard Inlets
Yard inlet material
Typical yard inlet length
Number of yard inlets per plot
Total length of yard inlet
Reinforced Concrete Pipe

7,368 feet
21 - 60 inches
H=1, V=1
1 feet
Crushed or screed bank run gravel
1 CY bucket
Minimum
3 feet
1/2 CY backhoe for 4-6 ft deep trench
3/4 CY backhoe for 6-10 ft deep trench
42
trench depth + 3 feet
25
trench depth + 1 feet
25
Watertight, 24 inch diameter
14736 feet
Steel forms, 6 in. 6 in. curbs, 24 inch
wide gutter
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
150 feet
2
15,000 feet
A maintenance cost of $ 4,000 per year, interest rate on debt capital of 5 % and a
financing period of 20 years was used to estimate the costs. When these parameters were entered
into the model, the model calculated the present value of all costs as $ 1,811,700 and the
annualized value of all costs during the financial life of the project as $ 145,400. Table 95
summarizes these costs as estimated by the spreadsheet model.
140
Table 95. Summary of Estimated Costs using the Spreadsheet Model

Interest rate on debt capital, (%)
5
Financing period, (yrs)
20
Present value multiplier
13.59
Annual value of present amount
0.0736
Capital cost, ($)
1,766,500
Present value of all costs, ($)
1,811,700
Annualized value of all costs, ($)
145,400
4.5 Grass Swales as an Alternative Stormwater Conveyance System

Grass swales can be used as an alternate form of stormwater conveyance system for the
Huntsville industrial site. The site is divided into four main drainage subareas labeled as A, B, C,
and D. There are several additional minor drainage subareas that will remain undeveloped and do
not drain to one of the designated stormwater ponds.
4.5.1 Subarea A
There is one long regional drainage swale in this subarea that collects the sheetflows from
the bioretention swales from each site and directs the excess water to the ponds on the southern
property edge. This swale is about 1,700 feet long, on about a 2.6% slope, and will be 50 ft wide.
It will also have 3 to 1 (H to V) side slopes, or less, and have 1 inch per hour infiltration rates.
The bottom of the swale will be deep vibratory cultivated during proper moisture conditions to
increase the infiltration rate, if compacted. This swale will also have limestone check dams every
100 ft to add alkalinity to the water and to encourage infiltration. The vegetation in the drainage
should be native grasses having deep roots and be mowed to a height of about 6 inches, or
longer. Any cut grass should be left in place to act as a mulch which will help preserve
infiltration rates. The swale should have a natural buffer on each side at least 50 ft wide. Any
road or walkway crossings over the grassed waterway areas should be on confined to a narrow
width.
4.5.2 Subarea B
This subarea comprises about 60 acres, with about 35 acres industrial and 25 acres open
space. This area is noteworthy due to the natural double drainways that currently drain the area.
These will be left in undeveloped land and used for site drainage.
4.5.3 Subarea C
This subarea has about 24 acres (16 acres industrial, 4 acres residential, and about 4 acres
open space). About 7 industrial sites are also located in this area, including some partial sites.
4.5.4 Subarea D
This site subarea is the most developed, having about 33 acres of industrial land and
about 6 acres of undeveloped land. The natural drainage directs the runoff from this area to
adjacent city-owned land and to a future wet detention pond.
141
4.6 Costs for Grass Swales Estimated Using WinSLAMM

WinSLAMM was used to estimate the capital cost and annual operation and maintenance
costs of the grass swales for the Huntsville industrial site. Figure 52 shows the input screen in
WinSLAMM for entering the swale dimensions and properties. Figure 53 shows the cost data
input screen in WinSLAMM for grass swales.
Figure 52. WinSLAMM Grass Swales Input Parameters Screen
142
Figure 53. Cost Data Selection Screen for Grass Swales in WinSLAMM
For site C, the example calculations done by WinSLAMM are presented below:
Swale depth (x) = 2 ft.
Bottom width = 20 ft.
Capital cost, y = Ax2 + Bx + C
= (0.82 * 4) + (3.79 * 2) + 10.55
= 21.41 $/LF
Maintenance Cost, y = mx + B
= (0.1*2) + 0.59
= 0.79 $/LF
Note: The constants A, B, C values in the capital cost equation and the m, B values in the
maintenance cost equations are adjusted to 2005 costs.
Total drainage area = 23.9 ac
Swale density = 406 ft/ac
Total length of swale = 9703.4 ft
Capital cost = 9703.4 * 21.41 = $207,750
Adjusting to cost index = $207,750 / 1.49 = $139,300
Maintenance cost = 9703.4 * 0.79 = $7,666
Adjusting to cost index = $5,100
143
Figure 54 shows the WinSLAMM output screen showing the total control practice costs for
construction of grass swales at subarea C.
Figure 54. WinSLAMM Output Screen Showing Costs for Grass Swale for Subarea C
Table 96 shows the costs associated with the construction of grass swales for each of the
subareas estimated by WinSLAMM.
Table 96. Costs of Grass Swales for Each Subarea
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C Subarea D
Capital Cost ($)
40,600
25,100
139,300
22,700
Annual Maintenance Cost ($)
1,500
1,100
5,100
1,300
Present Value of All Costs ($)
59,200
39,400
202,700
50,100
Annualized Value of All Costs ($)
4,700
3,200
16,300
4000
4.7 Comparison of Costs for Swales and Conventional Pipes

The data obtained from the literature sources that were reviewed and the fitted equations
were incorporated into the WinSLAMM model to estimate the capital costs and the annual
operation and maintenance costs for the stormwater control practices (wet detention ponds, grass
swales, and biofiltration devices) for the example site conditions. The equations derived from the
published unit cost data for conventional drainage systems were used in the spreadsheet model to
estimate the costs involved in the construction and operation of a conventional stormwater
144
conveyance system for comparison. WinSLAMM and the spreadsheet model are used together to
estimate the capital costs, annual maintenance costs, present value of all costs and the annualized
value of all costs of the stormwater drainage and the stormwater management systems. The total
control practice cost output screen from WinSLAMM and the spreadsheet are shown in Figures
55 and 56 respectively.
Figure 55. Total Control Practice Costs Output Screen in WinSLAMM
145
146
Figure 56. Stormwater Conveyance System Total Costs Display Screen in Spreadsheet Model
A 250-acre industrial site located in Huntsville, Alabama, was used in the comparison of
costs for construction of a conventional stormwater conveyance system (using the spreadsheet
model) and the costs for construction and operation of alternative grass swales (using
WinSLAMM). The costs estimated by WinSLAMM and by the spreadsheet model are shown in
Table 97. The conventional stormwater conveyance system was observed to be more than three
times costlier than the grass swales for conveyance, considering capital and swale maintenance
costs. About $118,000 per year, or $3,350,000 over the 20 year financing period, would be saved
using the grass swale alternative.
Table 97. Summary of Costs from WinSLAMM and the Spreadsheet Model
Conventional Stormwater
Grass
Cost ($)
Conveyance System
Swale
Capital Cost
1,771,296
227,700
Annual Maintenance Cost
0
9,000
Present Value of All Costs
1,816,518
351,400
Annualized Value of All Costs
145,762
28,200
Decision analysis techniques can be used to select the most appropriate program for an
area, based on many performance objectives and cost restraints. Further analysis of the pollutant
loadings and runoff volumes from a site and the desired reductions can be used to identify the set
of control practices that could be implemented at a site. WinSLAMM is capable of estimating
these loads for a broad range of pollutants, such as solids, nutrients (phosphorous, nitrate, TKN),
metals (chromium, copper, lead, zinc), COD, ammonia, bacteria, and runoff volume for a variety
of stormwater control practices and development options (including base conditions).
147
Chapter V
Conclusions
This research discussed the costs associated with the construction and operation of
various stormwater control and conveyance practices. The costs for these stormwater control
practices were presented in Chapter II in the form of tables and figures available from published
literature sources. Also presented were equations derived from these data and from RS Means
published unit cost data. The spreadsheet model developed as part of this research includes ENR
construction cost index values available starting from 1978 to the present, for 20 cities in the US,
along with the national average index values. These index values were used to convert regional
cost data collected during specific past years to current conditions. The ENR cost index values
for these years are presented in Appendix A. Also presented are graphs showing the variation in
the construction cost index for each of the 20 cities from 1978 through 2005. Using an estimated
future inflation rate, the cost estimated from the model can also be used to predict the costs for
future years. The spreadsheet model estimates the costs specifically associated with the
construction, operation, and financing of a conventional stormwater conveyance system. The
spreadsheet model is easier to use compared to other programming-based cost estimating tools.
Cost summaries and equations for conventional stormwater control practices are
presented in Chapter II from several sources. The comprehensive cost data obtained by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (1991) were used to describe the
relative component costs of several major controls, as summarized in the following paragraphs.
Wet Detention Ponds
General excavation, contingencies, pond outlets, pond inlets, and clearing are the major
cost components for wet detention ponds. However, the relative order of these components
depends on the size of the wet detention pond. For wet detention ponds of 0.25 acres, the cost of
construction of the pond outlet is about 24% of the total capital costs. This is followed by the
cost of construction of the pond inlet (20%), and the contingency fee (20%). However, the
general excavation costs contribute about 12% of the total capital cost associated with a 0.25acre pond. Figure 57 shows the data presented earlier in Table 21 for the percentage cost
contributions for each component of the wet detention pond.
148
0.25-acre Wet Detention Pond
Contingencies,
Engineering, Legal Fees
and Administration, 20%
Mobilization
Demobilization, 4%
Clearing, 7%
Grubbing, 2%
General Excavation,
12%
Landscape, fence, etc,

2%
Place and Compact Fill,

2%
Seed and Mulch, 4%
Sod, 1%
Riprap, 2%
Pond Outlet, 24%
Pont Inlet, 20%
Figure 57. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 0.25-acre Wet Detention Pond
For a larger wet detention pond of 1 acre, the cost of excavation increases to around 28%
of the total capital cost. This is followed by the contingency fee which is about 20% of the total
capital cost. Clearing costs are nearly 10-12% of the total capital cost, followed by the pond
outlet costs and the pond inlet costs. Figure 58 shows the data presented earlier in Table 22 for a
1-acre wet detention pond.
149
1-acre Wet Detention Pond
Contingencies,
Mobilization
Demobilization, 1%
Clearing, 11%
Grubbing, 4%

3%
General Excavation,
28%
Pond Outlet, 9%
Pont Inlet, 8%
Riprap, 2%
Sod, 2%

6%
Seed and Mulch, 6%
Figure 58. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Wet Detention Pond
For a wet detention pond area of 3 acres, the order of the components contributing
towards the total capital cost is the same as the 1-acre detention pond. However, the cost of
excavation increased by 10% compared to the 1-acre wet detention pond to a total of 38% of the
total capital cost. Contingencies are 20% of the total capital cost. However, the cost of clearing
increased to 11% for the 3-acre pond. With the increased area of the pond, the site preparation
and site development activities such as placing and compacting fill, seeding and mulching and
grubbing are all larger than the cost of construction of the pond inlet and outlet structures. Table
59 shows the distribution of the total median capital costs for the components for a 3-acre wet
detention pond.
150
3-acre Wet Detention Pond
Contingencies,
Mobilization
Demobilization, 0.48%
Clearing, 11%
Grubbing, 4%

3%
Pond Outlet, 3%
Pont Inlet, 3%
Riprap, 2%
Sod, 2%
General Excavation,
38%
Seed and Mulch, 6%

8%
Similar distributions of costs were also seen for a 5-acre wet detention pond. Figure 61
shows the distribution of the total median capital cost for a 5-acre wet detention pond.
151
5-acre Wet Detention Basin
Contingencies,
Mobilization
Clearing, 11%
Grubbing, 4%

3%
Pond Outlet, 2%
Pont Inlet, 2%
Riprap, 2%
Sod, 2%
General Excavation,
40%
Seed and Mulch, 6%

8%
The average annual operation and maintenance cost for a 0.25-acre wet detention pond is
about 4.7% of the estimated capital cost, 3.4% for a 1-acre wet detention pond, 2.7% for a 3-acre
pond and 2.5% for a 5-acre wet detention pond.
Infiltration Pond
The infiltration pond inlet, general excavation, and sodding contribute the most towards
the total capital cost of an infiltration pond, apart from the assumed 20% contingency cost. For a
0.25-acre infiltration pond, the cost of construction of the pond inlet contributes 25% of the total
capital cost, while the general excavation contributes 13% towards the total capital costs. For an
infiltration pond of 1-acre, the cost of general excavation increases to 22% of the total capital
cost, while the cost for the pond inlet is reduced to 8%. Figures 69 and 70 show the distribution
of the total capital cost components for a 0.25-acre and 1-acre infiltration pond.
152
0.25-acre Infiltration Pond
Mobilization
Demobilization, 4%
Clearing, 8%
Contingencies, 20%
Grubbing, 3%
General Excavation,
13%

4%

3%
Level and Till, 2%
Pont Inlet, 25%
Seed and Mulch, 5%
Sod, 12%
Riprap, 1%
Figure 61. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 0.25-acre Infiltration Pond
1-acre Infiltration Pond
Mobilization
Demobilization, 1%
Clearing, 10%
Contingencies, 20%
Grubbing, 4%

6%
General Excavation,
22%
Pont Inlet, 8%
Riprap, 0.41%
4%
Level and Till, 2%
Sod, 16%
Seed and Mulch, 7%
Figure 62. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Infiltration Pond
153
For outfall stormwater control practices, such as wet detention and infiltration ponds, site
preparation activities (general excavation) contribute the most towards the total capital costs.
This is followed by the cost for site development activities (pond inlet and outlet structures and
sodding).
Grass Filter Strips
Sodding (25%), grubbing (23%), contingencies (20%), clearing (17%), and seeding and
mulching (11%) contribute towards the total capital costs of a grass filter strip in this same
relative order for all filter strip sizes. Figures 66, 67, and 68 show the cost distribution among the
components for a 25 feet, 50 feet and 100 feet wide grass filter strip.
25-foot wide Grass Filter Strip
Mobilization
Demobilization, 2%
Contingencies, 20%
Clearing, 16%
Grubbing, 23%
Sod, 25%
Grading, 4%
Seed and Mulch, 10%
Figure 63. Distribution of the Total Capital Cost for a 25-feet Wide Grass Filter Strip
154

Mobilization
Demobilization, 1%
Contingencies, 20%
Clearing, 17%
Grubbing, 23%
Sod, 24%
Grading, 4%
Seed and Mulch, 11%

Mobilization
Contingencies, 20%
Clearing, 17%
Grubbing, 23%
Sod, 25%
Grading, 4%
Seed and Mulch, 11%
155
Grass Swales
In case of grass swales, sodding, clearing, and general excavation contribute the most
towards the total capital costs. However, the order of these components depends on the depth and
width of the grass swale. With the increase in swale depth from 1.5-foot deep to 3-foot deep, and
width from 10 feet to 21 feet, the relative cost of general excavation increases from 12% to 25%
of the total capital costs. The percentage contribution of each component of the grass swale
towards the capital cost is shown in Figures 62 and 63 for two different swale dimensions. The
relative cost of grubbing and contingencies remain the same with the increase in size. However,
the relative cost of clearing, sodding, seeding and mulching decreases with the increase in grass
swale area.
1.5 foot deep, 10 feet wide, 1,000 feet long grass swale
Mobilization
Demobilization, 2%
Contingencies, 20%
Clearing, 16%
Grubbing, 11%
Sod, 25%
General Excavation,
12%
Level and Till, 4%

Seed and Mulch, 10%
Figure 66. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1.5-foot Deep, 10-feet Wide Grass Swale
156
3.0 feet deep, 21 feet wide, 1,000 feet long grass swale
Mobilization
Demobilization, 1%
Clearing, 12%
Contingencies, 20%
Grubbing, 11%
Sod, 19%
General Excavation,
25%
Seed and Mulch, 8%
Level and Till, 4%
Figure 67. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 3-foot Deep, 21-feet Wide Grass Swale
For conservation design controls such as grass filter strips and grass swales, the costs for
sodding, clearing and grubbing influence the total capital cost the most. In the case of grass
swales which also involve excavation, the general excavation costs become an important factor
that significantly influences the total capital cost.
Permeable Pavement
Crushed stone and the geotextile fabric contribute the most towards the total capital cost
of permeable pavement installations. Crushes stone contributes nearly 50% of the total capital
costs, while the geotextile fabric contributes 17% of the total capital costs for a 1-acre permeable
pavement. Current designs for permeable pavement usually do not use geotextile fabrics due to
their history of clogging. Figure 71 shows the distribution in components capital costs for a 1acre permeable pavement installation.
157
1-acre permeable pavement

General Excavation, 9%
Contingencies, 20%
Geotextile Fabric, 17%
Permeable Pavement,
6%
Crushed Stone Fill, 48%
Figure 68. Distribution of Total Capital Cost for a 1-acre Permeable Pavement Installation
Infiltration Trench
Sodding, crushed stone fill, and shallow observation wells are the factors, apart from the
contingency costs. that affect the total capital costs the most for an infiltration trench. For a 3feet deep and 4-feet wide trench, sodding costs are nearly 21% of the total capital costs and the
costs of crushed stone fill is about 17% of the total capital costs. For an infiltration trench 6-feet
deep and 10-feet wide, the relative costs of sodding reduced to 9% of the total capital cost, while
the relative costs of crushed stone fill increased to 37% of the total capital costs. However, the
costs of the geotextile fabric remained the same in both infiltration trench sizes. Figures 64 and
65 shows the component costs for an infiltration trench that is 3-feet deep and 4-feet wide trench
and for a trench that is 6-feet deep and 10-feet wide. The relative cost of the trench excavation
increased by about 5% when the trench size was increased, while the relative costs of the shallow
observation wells decreased from 13% to 9%.
158
3-feet deep, 4-feet wide, 100 feet long Infiltration Trench
Grubbing, 1%
Trench Excavation, 5%
Clearing, 9%
Seed and Mulch, 2%
Mobilization
Demobilization, 5%
Sod, 21%
Contingencies, 20%

Shallow Observation
Well, 13%
Infiltration Trench
6 feet deep, 10 feet wide, 100 feet long Infiltration Trench

Mobilization
Demobilization, 2%
Clearing, 4%
Contingencies, 20%
Grubbing, 1%
Trench Excavation, 10%
Seed and Mulch, 1%
Sod, 9%
Shallow Observation
Well, 9%
Infiltration Trench
159
In case of stormwater control practices crushed stone fill, the stone influences the capital
costs the most. In case of infiltration trenches, this is followed by the costs for sodding and the
costs for shallow observation wells.
Conventional Stormwater Conveyance
The spreadsheet model shows that for a given pipe diameter, the capital cost of a
conveyance system is influenced most by the cost of pipe installation. This is followed by the
cost of trench excavation, bedding and the backfill. The cost for pipe installation is nearly three
to four times greater than the cost for trench excavation.
160
References
American Public Works Association (APWA), Water Resource Committee, Southern California
Chapter. A Study of Nationwide Costs to Implement Municipal Storm Water Best
Management Practices. California, 1992.
Bauer, W.J. Economics of Urban Drainage Systems. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
ASCE. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, (November 1962): Vol.
88, No. HY6. Proc. Paper 3321, 92-114.
Brown, W. and T. Schueler. The Economics of Storm Water BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection, 1997.
CALTRANS, Division of Environmental Analysis. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program. Report ID
CTSWRT01050. California, 2001
CALTRANS, State of California, Department of Transportation. Phase I Gross Solids Removal
Devices Pilot Study: 2000-2002. CTSW-RT-03-072.31.22. California, October 2003a.
CALTRANS, State of California, Department of Transportation. Phase II Gross Solids Removal
Device Pilot Study 2001-2003. CTSW-RT-03-072.31.22. California, November 2003b.
Dajani, J.P. and Gemmell, R.S. Economics of Wastewater Collection Networks. WRC
Research report No.43. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Water Resources Center, 1971.
Dames and Moore. Construction Costs for Municipal Waterwater Conveyance Systems: 19731977. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations. Washington, D.C. 1978.
Eco-Roof Systems, W.P.Hickman Systems Inc [Internet]. Available from
http://www.ecoroofsystems.com/cost_files/c_cost.html. Accessed 4 May 2006.
Ferguson, T.; Gignac, R.; Stoffan, M.; Ibrahim, A.; and Aldrich, J. Rouge River National Wet
Weather Demonstration Project: Cost Estimating Guidelines, Best Management
Practices and Engineered Controls. Wayne County, MI, 1997.
Field, R.; Tafuri, A.N.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Acquisto, B.A. and Selvakumar, A. The Use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds. DEStech Publications, Inc.,
Lancaster, PA, 2005.
Frank, J. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Literature.
Washington, DC, Urban Land Institute, 1989.
161
Grigg, N.S. and OHearn, J.P. Development of Storm Drainage Cost Functions. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division. American Society of Civil Engineers (April 1976): Vol. 8, 515-526.
Han, J.; Rao, A.R. and Houck, M.H. Least Cost Design of Urban Drainage Systems. Technical
Report no. 138. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Water Resources Research
Center, September 1980.
Heaney, James P.; David Sample and Leonard Wright. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control. EPA
Contract No. 68-C7-0011. National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of
Research and Development, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
2002.
Knapp, J.W. The Economics of Urban Drainage. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on
American Water Resources (November 1967): 631-638.
McGraw Hill Construction. Engineering News Record [Internet]. Available from
www.ENR.com. Accessed 18 May 2006.
Meredith, D.D. (1972) Dynamic Programming with Case Study on the Planning and Design of
Urban Water Facilities. Treatise on Urban Water Systems, Colorado State Univ., Fort
Collins, Colorado, Vol. 9: 37-47.
Merrit, L.B. and Bogan, R.H. (1973) Computer-Based Optimal Design of Sewer Systems.
Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 99: 35-53.
Miles, S.W. and Heaney, J. P. Better than Optimal Method for Designing Drainage Systems.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, American Society for Civil
Engineers (September 1988): Vol. 114, 477-499.
Moss, T. and Jankiewicz, E.Z. What Type Sewer Pipe is Best? Life Cycle Cost Analysis Yields
Answer. American Society of Civil Engineers (October 1982): Vol. 52. No.10. 75-76.
Office of Water Programs and California State University. Sacramento: California State Water
Resources Control Board, NPDES Stormwater Cost Survey. California, 2005.
Rawls, W.J. and Knapp, J.W. Methods of Predicting Urban Drainage Costs. Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers (September 1972): Vol. 98,
No. HY9, Proc. Paper 9206, 1575-1585.
Sample, D.J.; Heaney, J.P.; Wright, L.T.; Fan, C.Y.; Lai, F.H. and Field, R. (2003) Cost of Best
Management Practices and Associated Land for Urban Stormwater Control. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 129, No.1, 59-68.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source
Water Pollution Control Measure. Waukesha, WI, 1991.
162
Stormceptor. The Stormceptor System for Stormwater Quality Improvement, Technical

Manual, November 1997.
Tyteca, D. (1976) Cost Functions for Wastewater Conveyance Systems. Journal/Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48, 2120-2130.
Muthukrishnan, S.; Madge, B.; Selvakumar, A.; Field, R. and Sullivan, D. The Use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio, 2006.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Unpublished Data on 87 Reservoirs Built between
1952 and 1981, 1981.
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Parametric Cost Estimation Handbook. Joint
Government/Industry Initiative, 1995.
USEPA. Cost Estimating Manual Combined Sewer Overflow Storage and Treatment. EPA600/2-76-286, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
USEPA. Cost Methodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater
Discharge. EPA-430/9-79-003. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1978.
USEPA. Manual:Combined Sewer Overflow Control. EPA-625-R-93-0007. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1933b.
USEPA. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA821-R-99-012. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
USEPA. Stormwater O&M Fact Sheet - Catch Basin Cleaning. EPA 832-F-99-011, Office of
Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1999.
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Hydrodynamic Separators. EPA 832-F-99-017,
Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1999.
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Bioretention. EPA 832- F-99-012, Office of
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Porous Pavement. EPA 832-F-99-023, Office of
163
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet Sand Filters. EPA 832-F-99-007, Office of
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Stormwater Wetlands. EPA 832-F-99-025,
1999.
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Vegetated Swales. EPA 832-F-99-006, Office of
USEPA. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet - Wet Detention Ponds. EPA 832- F-99-048,
1999.
Peluso, Vincent F. and Marshall, A. Best Management Practices for South Florida Urban
Stormwater Management Systems. Appendix A - Typical Costs Associated with Structural
BMPs. Everglades Stormwater Program South Florida Water Management District, West
palm, Florida, 2002.
Wiegand, C.; Schueler, T.; Chittenden, W. and Jellick, D. Cost of Urban Runoff Quality
Controls. Urban Runoff Quality. Engineering Foundation Conference. American Society
of Civil Engineers, Henniker, NH (June 1986): 366-380.
Wossink, Ada, and Hunt, B. An Evaluation of Cost and Benefits of Structural Stormwater Best
Management Practices in North Carolina, North Carolina State University, North
Carolina, 2003.
Young, G.K.; Stein, S.; Cole, P.; Krammer, T.; Graziano, F. and Bank, F. Evaluation and
Management of Highway Runoff. Water Quality Technical Report. Department of
Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
164
Appendix A
ENR Cost Indices
A1. Cost Adjustments for Different Locations and Dates
This report presented the costs involved in the construction, operation and maintenance
of several stormwater controls. These costs are representative of costs incurred in a specific year
or in a specific period of time, and location. To determine the cost of construction of these
stormwater controls in 2005, or in any other particular year or location, the corresponding cost
index values are used from the attached cost index chart.
These Cost Index values are prepared by McGraw Hill, the publisher of the Engineering
News Record (ENR) and are available from www.ENR.com. ENR has price reporters covering
20 U.S. cities who check prices locally. The prices are quoted from the same suppliers each
month. ENR computes its latest indexes from these figures and local union wage rates. The 20
cities are: Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Birmingham AL, Boston MA, Chicago IL, Cincinnati
OH, Cleveland OH, Dallas TX, Denver CO, Detroit MI, Kansas City MO, Los Angeles CA,
Minneapolis MN, New Orleans LA, New York NY, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, San
Francisco CA, Seattle WA, St. Louis MO. The Construction Cost Index values for these 20 cities
in the US from 1978 to 2005 are shown in Table A1. Also, shown are the 20-city averaged
construction cost index, materials price index, common labor index and building cost.
For determining the cost index for cities not listed in the chart, the index value can be
obtained by averaging the costs of the nearest cities. Figures A1- A20 show the variation in the
construction cost index from 1978 to 2006 for the 20 cities listed above. Figure A21 is a US map
showing the 20 cities with Thiessen Polygons drawn around each city. These polygons define the
closest areas of influence around each of the 20 cities. They were constructed by joining
perpendicular bisectors between each pair of cities.
165
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Atlanta,
GA
2172.6
2358.43
2535.72
2801.31
3034.47
2909
2898.53
2909.71
3018.67
3094.92
3107.63
3141.55
3191.55
3224.67
3348.42
3389.89
3430.97
3381.41
3601.31
3690.27
3772.43
3849.39
4105.86
4045.52
4189.12
4374.69
4533.6
4678.48
166
Table A1. ENR Construction Cost Index Values for Different Cities
Baltimore,
Birmingham,
Boston,
Chicago,
Cincinnati,
MD
AL
MA
IL
OH
2396.39
2283.3
2772.83
2981.85
3088.21
2719.34
2431.67
3096.16
3266.78
3349.05
2904.39
2558.45
3173.98
3497.25
3609.93
3060.78
2768.12
3659.88
3749.45
4045.44
3097.4
2853.6
3993.72
4106.45
4234.64
3107.35
2983.6
4204.75
4235.73
4398.6
3158.77
3074.83
4497.4
4319.75
4437.58
3236.9
3037.76
4685.85
4367.28
4548.2
3372.26
3083.92
4722.66
4495.88
4567.24
3560.91
3251.65
4941.39
4686.53
4647.13
3576.83
3331.21
5137.58
4844.48
4700.51
3707.18
3413.76
5373.14
4957.69
4877.51
3884.43
3426.41
5614.79
4998.8
4933.91
3858.19
3466.21
5722.5
5384.16
5011.1
3997.47
3665.33
5973.33
5643.78
5209.18
4171.75
3919.97
6380.25
5962.58
5344.53
4198.95
3940.28
6404.34
6177.81
5504.43
4324.86
4069.43
6407.28
6333.93
5450.56
4544.51
4264.98
6772.2
6743.46
5488.81
4502.11
4310.28
6747.28
6625.83
5585.21
4534.38
4230.88
6921.04
7086.96
5641.21
4564.19
4472.05
7103.92
7464.71
5888.56
4532.08
4504.66
6986.61
7747.96
6044.89
4542.29
4716.58
7042.39
7679.62
5858.12
4580.15
4686.49
7546.61
7965.18
6155.81
4818.78
4904.07
7976.09
8348.45
6286.9
4978.88
5125.83
8216.29
8927.07
6587.24
5277.70
5308.60
8684.81
9603.47
7031.37
3267.97
3565.5
3860.76
4379.04
4669.64
4847.04
5073.08
4992.32
5061.56
5251.44
5237.37
5161.68
5368.82
5450.25
5501.09
5752.29
5922.53
6018.52
6187.09
6264.58
6347.97
6462.03
6733.83
6920.63
7067.13
7229.01
7468.96
7763.33
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
2082.95
2427.24
2683.34
2975.25
3192.54
3263.61
2950.4
2997.36
3152.84
2985.85
3184.72
3208.39
3195.21
3336.53
3476.69
3570.97
3640.03
3641.12
3870.81
3935.95
3960.19
3968.5
3985.86
3854.32
3895.46
4044.04
4207.65
4528.39
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Denver,
CO
2564.77
2739.14
2947.14
3200.57
3445.7
3690.22
3106.45r
3316.24
3503.37
3506.95
3538.26
3641.78
3668.2
3715.34
3833.64
4012.02
4008.74
4087.82
4334.09
4329.24
4470.35
4498.45
4766.74
4663.08
4744.3
5015.43
5310.42
5476.76
Detroit,
MI
3223.97
3492.04
3798.23
4138.17
4244.91
4375.55
4331.1
4468.09
4674.95
4859.89
5092.67
5171.88
5153.9
5244.65
5395.34
5917.92
5979.62
6135.27
6428.7
6619.64
6817.65
6943.56
7100.4
7378.92
7654.06
7860.94
8191.41
8585.49
167
Table A1 Continued.
Kansas City,
Los Angeles, CA
MO
3039.64
3421.25
3256.47
3638.81
3551.83
4102.37
3838.22
4530.96
4069.74
4934.14
4199.38
5063.89
4200.58
5259.93
4337.4
5446.69
4485.48
5452.2
4599.98
5474.14
4667.26
5770.84
4719.9
5789.77
4763.94
5994.55
4762.18
6090.12
4955.79
6348.55
5224.43
6477.84
5304.63
6532.95
5369.96
6526.22
5652.65
6558.44
5909.18
6663.55
5981.26
6851.95
5999.65
6825.97
6221.07
7068.04
6477.21
7226.92
6782.21
7402.75
6971.96
7531.77
7494.32
7899.48
8022.29
8330.11
Minneapolis,
MN
2902.6
3154.37
3238.86
3612.6
3924.98
4322.45
4209.93
4303.33
4406.75
4494.16
4582.99
4804.75
4798.61
4932.67
5133.25
5395.05
5776.85
5909.05
6298.52
6434.11
6628.38
6878.53
6995.02
7317.41
7620.66
7999.46
8329.93
8858.57
New Orleans,
LA
2346.65
2693.75
2792.99
3087.99
3294.66
3444.58
3427.64
3411.86
3513.96
3572.49
3571.19
3590.13
3602.41
3638.65
3730.37
3764.21
3831.08
3833.36
3973.26
4013.79
3994.93
3945.01
4016.26
3984.38
3906.42
3899.73
4257.45
4391.00
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
New York,
NY
3325.43
3580.5
3774.64
4125.68
4553.93
4887.55
5160.95
5388.08
5621.15
5961.27
6231.12
6453.56
6846.49
7110.37
7367.49
7737.11
8117.64
8378.68
8554.47
8742.88
8899.59
9355.77
9379.14
10101.24
10009.06
10386.73
11279.53
11810.41
168
Table A1 Continued.
Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh,
San Francisco, CA
PA
PA
2839.24
2945.44
3412.2
3183.93
3180.57
3806.14
3233.59
3383.37
4371.96
3603.48
3653.46
4592.45
3858.5
3894.97
4993.3
4175.74
4077.51
5122.74
4437.81
4234.49
5049.13
4549.62
4208.63
5055.04
4678.78
4280.39
5508.43
4883.56
4311.93
5732.37
5064.2
4331.7
5734.48
5299.78
4425.57
5932.57
5431.26
4580.56
6055.61
5616.96
4696.93
6222.06
5682.35
4988.38
6294.84
6022.23
5287.87
6477.95
6224.86
5485.79
6530.35
6431
5648.52
6558.16
6599.25
5984.29
6629.61
7057.36
5889.15
6731.08
7297.87
5976.05
6845.59
7487.01
6068.33
6816.7
7600.26
6198.9
7447.99
7960.76
6252.6
7399.07
8226.27
6419.37
7644.46
8403.02
6512.58
7788.8
8701.1
6884.92
8091.66
8743.07
7035.58
8298.84
Seattle,
WA
3197
3497.64
3909.16
4230.36
4490.38
4559.55
4546.01
4563.1
4585.4
4684.28
4738.35
4898.01
4933.39
5120.63
5320.37
5630.25
5818.49
5924.09
6086.77
6639.85
6957.81
7137.17
7368.25
7335.24
7561.98
7866.58
8014.67
8264.59
St.Louis,
MO
3105.71
3344.2
3578.4
3834.64
4107.49
4325.69
4511.37
4733.37
4827.92
5056.78
5061.56
5132.97
5090.94
5172.41
5315.67
5765.31
5947.05
6053.67
6302.04
6474.56
6598.82
6806.23
6851.3
7047.92
7197.19
7414.09
7797.3
8181.54
Table A1 Continued.
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Construction
Cost Index,
20 City
Average
2776
3003
3237
3535
3825
4066
4146
4195
4295
4406
4519
4615
4732
4835
4985
5210
5408
5471
5620
5826
5920
6059
6221
6343
6538
6694
7115
7444
Materials Cost
Index, 20 City
Average
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1650.75
1620.83
1617.08
1634.17
1659.00
1694.00
1693.33
1720.17
1708.83
1760.92
1953.17
2068.17
1992.83
2045.83
2225.92
2179.25
2184.08
2195.08
2112.83
2043.67
1980.75
2295.83
169
Common Labor
Index, 20 City
Average
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9645.75
9935.17
10243.42
10524.75
10855.92
11146.25
11443.83
11697.33
12024.42
12382.58
12789.67
13242.25
13870.67
14385.67
14977.58
Building Cost
Index, 20 City
Average
1654
1919
1941
2097
2234
2384
2417
2428
2483
2541
2598
2634
2702
2751
2834
2996
3111
3111
3203
3364
3391
3456
3539
3574
3623
3693
3984
time vs. CCI (Atlanta, GA)

5000
4000
CCI
3000
2000
1000
0
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr)
Figure A1. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Atlanta, GA

time vs. CCI (Baltimore, MD)
6000
5000
CCI
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr)
Figure A2. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Baltimore, MD
170
time vs. CCI (Birmingham, AL)

6000
5000
CCI
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A3. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Birmingham, AL

time vs. CCI (Boston, MA)
10000
9000
8000
7000
CCI
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A4. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Boston, MA
171
time vs. CCI (Chicago, IL)

12000
10000
8000
CCI
6000
4000
2000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A5. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Chicago, IL

time vs. CCI (Cincinnati, OH)
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A6. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Cincinnati, OH
172
time vs. CCI (Cleveland, OH)

9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A7. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Cleveland, OH

time vs. CCI (Dallas, TX)
5000
4500
4000
3500
CCI
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A8. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Dallas, TX
173
time vs. CCI (Denver, CO)

6000
5000
CCI
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A9. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Denver, CO

time vs. CCI (Detroit, MI)
10000
9000
8000
7000
CCI
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A10. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Detroit, MI
174
time vs. CCI (Kansas City, MO)

9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A11. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Kansas City, MO
time vs. CCI (Los Angeles, CA)
9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A12. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Los Angeles, CA
175
time vs. CCI (Minneapolis, MN)

10000
9000
8000
7000
CCI
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A13. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Minneapolis, MN

time vs. CCI (New Orleans, LA)
5000
4000
CCI
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A14. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for New Orleans, LA
176
time vs. CCI (New York, NY)

14000
12000
10000
CCI
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A15. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for New York, NY
time vs. CCI (Philadelphia, PA)
10000
9000
8000
7000
CCI
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A16. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Philadelphia, PA
177
time vs. CCI (Pittsburgh, PA)

8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A17. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Pittsburgh, PA

time vs. CCI (San Francisco, CA)
9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A18. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for San Francisco, CA
178
time vs. CCI (Seattle, WA)

9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A19. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for Seattle, WA

time vs. CCI (St.Louis, MO)
9000
8000
7000
6000
CCI
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
time (yr.)
Figure A20. Variation in CCI from 1978 to 2005 for St.Louis, MO
179
Figure A21. Thiessen Polygon for 20 Cities Listed in ENR
180

Arvind and Pitt Stormwater Cost Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Arvind and Pitt Stormwater Cost Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices

June 18, 2006

2.8.1.1 Continuous Deflective SeparatorTM (CDS) .........................................................60

2.10.1 Grass Filter Strips.............................................................................................................................. 72

Figure 45. Manhole/Junction Box Input Cells..........................................................................129

1.2 Project Objectives

1.3 Cost Analysis Elements

1.3.3 Design, Permitting and Contingency Costs

1.4 Research Outline

Earthen and concrete basins

Swirl concentrators, screens, sedimentation basins, and disinfection

Gross solid controls

Wet detention ponds and wetlands

Chemical treatment (alum and ferric chloride use)

Storm drain inlet inserts

Multi-chambered treatment train (MCTT)

Grass filter strips

Infiltration trenches, rain gardens, biofilters, and bioretention devices

Cisterns and rain barrels for water storage for reuse

2.2 Cost Estimation Methodologies

2.3 Cost Estimates for Stormwater/Wastewater Conveyance Systems

C = 58,273 + 8.73 T 0.04 S 0.89CR 0.64 DB 0.23Q 0.73 AD 0.71

T = design return period, years,

= length-slope factor, with S in percentage

(2.23) CC = AVC *WETFAC * DEPFAC * XLEN * SECI * CITY * CULT *

The terrain multiplier was calculated as:

(C1* 0.8131+ C 2 * 0.6033 + C 3 * 0.6985 + C 4 * 0.7169 + C 5 * 0.7911+ C 6 *1.3127)

Table 2. Lookup Table for Corrugated

Table 4. Average Non-pipe Costs Associated with Sanitary Sewers

Table 6. Bedding Costs, (RS Means, 2006)

Table 8. Manhole Costs (RS Means, 2006)

Prepare and roll subbase > 2500 yd3

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement

Prepare and roll subbase < 2500 yd3

Table 11. Paving Costs (RS Means, 2006)

Asphaltic Concrete Pavement

2.3.7 Curb and Gutter Costs

Table 13. Curb and Gutter Costs (RS Means, 2006)

2.4 Combined Sewage Overflow Controls that can be Applied to Stormwater

2.4.2 Earthen and Concrete Ponds

436,250 641,810 1,219,160 1,850,510 3,217,760 5,528,920 10,095,150 18,384,960 34,840,260

Figure 7. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 1 Mgal V 30 Mgal

Figure 8. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 30 Mgal V 600 Mgal

Figure 9. Construction Cost for Concrete Reservoir, 60 Mgal V 240 Mgal

2.4.3 Deep Tunnels

C = construction cost, millions, January 1999 costs, $, and

Construction cost (in Million $)

CSO Storage Basin

Construction Cost (in Million $)

Design flow rate (MGD)

Figure 11. Construction Costs of Swirl Concentrators, Screens, Sedimentation

2.5 Gross Solids Controls

Sediment, oil, and

Intercept and trap

Site dependent. For

Oil and Grit

Install grit and

Install grit and

Parking lot structure

Oil, grease, and

Clarifiers and Oil and

(2.23) CC = AVC WETFAC DEPFAC * XLEN * SECI * CITY * CULT *